WESTRIDGE MARINE TERMINAL UPGRADE AND EXPANSION …...Trans Mountain Expansion Project April 2017...

W E S T R I D G E M A R I N E T E R M I N A L E N V I R O N M E N T A L A I R A S S E S S M E N T

WESTRIDGE MARINE TERMINAL UPGRADE AND EXPANSION PROJECT APPLICATION TO VANCOUVER FRASER PORT AUTHORITY

Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC Kinder Morgan Canada Inc. Suite 2700, 300 – 5 Avenue S.W. Calgary, Alberta T2P 5J2 Ph: 403-514-6400

May 2017

Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC Air Emissions Management Plan for WMT Trans Mountain Expansion Project April 2017

01-13283-TW-WT00-RWD-RPT-0002 Page F-1

APPENDIX F Supplemental Air Quality Technical Report No. 3

REPORT

rwdi.com This document is intended for the sole use of the party to whom it is addressed and may contain information that is privileged and/or confidential. If you have received this in error, please notify us immediately. ® RWDI name and logo are registered trademarks in Canada and the United States of America

SUPPLEMENTAL AIR QUALITY TECHNICAL REPORT NO. 3

NEB CONDITIONS 79 AND 52 RWDI #1602001 April 7, 2017

SUBMITTED TO Margaret Mears Trans Mountain Expansion Project Environmental Lead Kinder Morgan Canada Inc. Suite 2700, 300-5th Ave SW Calgary, AB T2P 5J2

SUBMITTED BY David Chadder Hon. B.Sc., QEP Senior Project Director/Principal [email protected] Candace Bell, M.Sc. Project Manager [email protected] RWDI Suite 1000, 736 – 8 Avenue S.W. Calgary, AB, T2P 1H4 T: 403.232.6771 F: 403.232.6762

NEB CONDITIONS 79 AND 52 SUPPLEMENTAL AIR QUALITY TECHNICAL REPORT NO. 3

RWDI#1602001 April 7, 2017

rwdi.com

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1 DISCUSSION OF TECHNICAL DOCUMENTS ................................................................. 1

Background .................................................................................................................................................................1

Objectives .................................................................................................................................................................... 2

2 CHANGES TO TECHNICAL APPROACH .......................................................................... 2

CALPUFF/CALMET Model Versions ............................................................................................................... 3

Land Use for CALMET Modelling .................................................................................................................... 3

Site Layouts .................................................................................................................................................................4

VOC Collection and Destruction Efficiencies for the TVAUs ....................................................... 6

VOC Collection Efficiencies at Berth Locations .................................................................................... 7

H2S and Mercaptan Concentrations ........................................................................................................... 8

Mass Emission Rates for the VRUs and VCU.......................................................................................... 8 Vapour Recovery Units 8 Vapour Combustion Unit 11

Project-Related and Non-Project Marine Vessel Emissions Contribution into Combined BT, WMT and Marine Emissions Assessment .............................................................. 12

Project-related Marine Vessel Emissions Contribution 12 Non-Project Marine Vessel Emissions Contribution 12

External Facilities Analysis near Edmonton Terminal .................................................................... 16

3 AMBIENT AIR QUALITY OBJECTIVES ............................................................................ 16

4 EDMONTON TERMINAL MODEL PARAMETERS AND RESULTS ...................... 18

Model Parameters ................................................................................................................................................ 18 Base Case 18 Application Case 22 External Facilities 26

Dispersion Model Results ................................................................................................................................ 28

5 BURNABY TERMINAL MODEL PARAMETERS AND RESULTS ........................... 31

Model Parameters ................................................................................................................................................ 31


RWDI#1602001 April 7, 2017

rwdi.com

Base Case 31 Application Case 33


6 WESTRIDGE MARINE TERMINAL MODEL PARAMETERS AND RESULTS ..................................................................................................................................... 38

Model Parameters ............................................................................................................................................... 38 Base Case 38 Application Case 42


7 COMBINED SCENARIO MODEL RESULTS .................................................................. 47

8 CONCLUSIONS ......................................................................................................................... 49

9 REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................ 50


RWDI#1602001 April 7, 2017

rwdi.com

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1: Edmonton Terminal Application Case Layout ............................................................................. 5 Figure 2: Burnaby Terminal Application Case Layout................................................................................. 5 Figure 3: Westridge Marine Terminal Application Case Layout ................................................................ 6 Figure 4: Proposed Vapour Control System at Westridge Marine Terminal ......................................... 10 Figure 5: TVAU Stack Modelled at Edmonton and Burnaby Terminals .................................................. 26

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1: Levelton measured tanker loading VOC emission results at WMT (mg/l of oil loaded) .................................................................................................................................... 7

Table 2: Collection and Reduction Efficiencies for the Proposed VRUs ...................................... 11 Table 3: Collection and Destruction Efficiencies for the Proposed VCU ..................................... 12 Table 4: Years 2010 and 2015 MEIT Underway Annual Emissions by Vessel Class (in

tonnes/year) ......................................................................................................................... 14 Table 5: Years 2010 and 2015 MEIT Berth and Anchorage Annual Emissions by

Vessel Class (in tonnes/year) ............................................................................................. 15 Table 6: Ambient Air Quality Objectives (in µg/m3) ....................................................................... 17 Table 7: Edmonton Storage Tank Design and Assumed Product, Base Case ............................ 19 Table 8: Edmonton Storage Tanks Maximum Hourly Emission Rates, Base Case (in

g/s) ......................................................................................................................................... 20 Table 9: Edmonton Storage Tanks Annual Emission Rates, Base Case (in t/y) .......................... 21 Table 10: Edmonton Storage Tank Design and Assumed Product, Application Case ................ 23 Table 11: Edmonton Storage Tanks Maximum Hourly Emission Rates, Application

Case (in g/s) .......................................................................................................................... 24 Table 12: Edmonton Storage Tanks Annual Emission Rates, Application Case (in t/y) ............... 25 Table 13: Edmonton External Facilities emission rates (in t/y) ...................................................... 27 Table 14: Maximum Predicted Concentrations for the Edmonton Terminal Only

Excluding Ambient Background, Base Case and Application Case (in µg/m3) ............ 28 Table 15: Maximum Predicted Concentrations for the Edmonton Terminal Including

Ambient Background and Nearby Background Industrial Facilities, Base Case and Application Case (in µg/m3)............................................................................... 29

Table 16: Burnaby Storage Tank Details and Assumed Product, Base Case ............................... 31 Table 17: Burnaby Storage Tanks Maximum Hourly Emission Rates, Base Case (in

g/s) ......................................................................................................................................... 32 Table 18: Burnaby Storage Tanks Annual Emission Rates, Base Case (in t/y) ............................. 32 Table 19: Burnaby Storage Tank Details and Assumed Product, Application Case ................... 34 Table 20: Burnaby Storage Tanks Maximum Hourly Emission Rates, Application Case

(in g/s) ................................................................................................................................... 35


RWDI#1602001 April 7, 2017

rwdi.com

Table 21: Burnaby Storage Tanks Annual Emission Rates, Application Case (in t/y) .................. 36 Table 22: Maximum Predicted Concentrations for Burnaby Terminal Only Excluding

Ambient Background, Base Case and Application Case (in µg/m3) .............................. 37 Table 23: Stack Parameters for the Existing VCU, Base Case ......................................................... 38 Table 24: Existing VCU Maximum Hourly Emission Rates, Base Case (in g/s) ............................. 39 Table 25: Existing VCU Annual Emission Rates, Base Case (in t/y) ................................................ 39 Table 26: Collection and Destruction Efficiencies for the Existing VCU, Base Case .................... 39 Table 27: Stack Parameters for the Marine Auxiliary Engine and Boiler ...................................... 40 Table 28: Boiler, Auxiliary Engine and Tug Engine Maximum Hourly Emission Rates,

Base Case (per tanker, in g/s) ............................................................................................ 40 Table 29: Boiler, Auxiliary Engine and Tug Engine Annual Emission Rates, Base Case

(in t/y) .................................................................................................................................... 40 Table 30: Total Maximum Hourly Fugitive Emission Rates, Base Case (in g/s) ............................ 41 Table 31: Total Annual Fugitive Emission Rates, Base Case (in t/y) ............................................... 41 Table 32: Storage Tank Details and Assumed Product, Base Case ............................................... 41 Table 33: Storage Tanks Maximum Hourly Emission Rates, Base Case (in g/s)........................... 42 Table 34: Storage Tanks Annual Emission Rates, Base Case (in t/y) ............................................. 42 Table 35: Stack parameters for the Proposed VRUs and VCU, Application Case ........................ 42 Table 36: VRU/VCU Hourly Emission Rates, Application Case (in g/s) ........................................... 43 Table 37: VRU/VCU Annual Emission Rates, Application Case (in t/y) ........................................... 43 Table 38: Boiler, Auxiliary Engine and Tug Engine Annual Emission Rates per Berth,

Application Case (in t/y) ...................................................................................................... 44 Table 39: Total Maximum Hourly Fugitive Emission Rates at each Berth, Application

Case (in g/s) .......................................................................................................................... 44 Table 40: Total Annual Fugitive Emission Rates at each Berth, Application Case (in t/y) ........... 45 Table 41: Maximum Predicted Concentrations for Westridge Marine Terminal

Excluding Ambient Background, Base Case and Application Case (in µg/m3) ............ 46 Table 42: Maximum Predicted Concentrations for the Combined Base and

Application Cases (in µg/m3) .............................................................................................. 48

APPENDICES Appendix A: Summary of Changes in Facility Design and Assessment Criteria used in the Air Quality

Assessments for the Edmonton Terminal, Burnaby Terminal and Westridge Marine Terminal

Appendix B1: CALMET and CALPUFF Switch Settings for Burnaby Terminal and Westridge Marine Terminal

Appendix B2: CALMET and CALPUFF Switch Settings for Edmonton Terminal

Appendix C: Summary of Changes for Marine Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Marine Transportation

Assessments

Appendix D: Concentration Contour Plots


RWDI#1602001 April 7, 2017

rwdi.com

ACRONYMS

Definition/Acronym Description

AAAQO Alberta Ambient Air Quality Objectives

AEMP Air Emissions Management Plan

AEP Alberta Environment and Parks

AQMG Air Quality Model Guideline

BC AAQO British Columbia Ambient Air Quality Objectives

BC MOE British Columbia Ministry of Environment

BC British Columbia

BPIP-PRIME Building Profile Input Program Plume Rise Model Enhancement

BT Burnaby Terminal

BTEX Benzene, toluene, ethyl benzene, xylene

CAAQS Canadian Ambient Air Quality Standard

CAC Criteria Air Contaminant

CCME Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment

CO Carbon monoxide

CPCN Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity

ECCC Environment and Climate Change Canada

ESA Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment

ET Edmonton Terminal

H2S Hydrogen sulphide

IFRT Internal Floating Roof Tank

KMC Kinder Morgan Canada

MEIT Marine Emission Inventory Tool

MV Metro Vancouver

NAPS National Air Pollution Surveillance Program

NEB National Energy Board

NO2 Nitrogen dioxide

NOX Oxides of nitrogen

NPRI National Pollutant Release Inventory

O3 Ozone

PM2.5 Particulate matter less than 2.5 µm in diameter

PM Particulate matter

ppmv parts per million by volume

SO2 Sulphur dioxide


RWDI#1602001 April 7, 2017

rwdi.com

Definition/Acronym Description

RSA Regional Study Area

TAN Total Acid Number

TMEP Trans Mountain Expansion Project

TRS Total Reduced Sulphur

TVAU Tank Vapour Adsorption Unit

US EPA United States Environmental Protection Agency

VCU Vapour Combustion Unit

VOC Volatile Organic Compound

VRU Vapour Recovery Unit

WMT Westridge Marine Terminal

U.S. EPA United States Environmental Protection Agency


RWDI#1602001 April 7, 2017

rwdi.com Page 1

1 DISCUSSION OF TECHNICAL DOCUMENTS

Background

In December 2013, Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC (Trans Mountain) submitted its application for a Certificate

of Public Convenience and Necessity (CPCN) to the National Energy Board (NEB) for the Trans Mountain

Expansion Project (the Project). The CPCN Application consisted of eight volumes including the environmental

and socio-economic assessment (ESA). Volume 5C of the ESA included Technical Report 5C-4, Air Quality and

Greenhouse Gas Technical Report (Filing IDs A3S1U0 to A3S1U7) (referred to in this document as the “2013

Technical Report”). The 2013 Technical Report is an air quality assessment addressing the emissions of air

contaminants and greenhouse gases from Trans Mountain Assets including pipelines, pump stations and

storage terminals. Emission rates were estimated and dispersion modelling was completed for four

operational scenarios, namely, Base (Existing), Project Only, Application (Existing plus Project) and Cumulative.

Several chemicals were modelled, and predicted concentrations were compared to the applicable ambient air

quality objectives for the storage terminals in Edmonton, Kamloops, Sumas and Burnaby, and the Westridge

Marine Terminal.

In August 2014, Trans Mountain submitted a supplemental air quality technical report (referred to in this

document as the “Supplemental Technical Report No. 2”) (Filing ID A4A4E3), which addressed changes in the

emissions associated with the Project design updates based on refined engineering assumptions. For

example, this supplemental report included a more comprehensive suite of crude oil products, revised

emission rates from the storage tanks at the Burnaby Terminal (BT) and more stringent process specifications

for capture and recovery/destruction of vapours for the proposed vapour recovery units (VRU) and vapour

combustion unit (VCU) at the Westridge Marine Terminal (WMT).

Since the NEB filings in December 2013 and August 2014, the engineering design has continued to evolve and

improvements have been made to the assumptions that are used in the air quality modelling for the

Edmonton and Burnaby Terminals, and Westridge Marine Terminal. This supplemental report (referred to in

parts of this document as “Supplemental Technical Report No. 3”) describes these design changes and

provides updated dispersion modelling results for the Base Case, Application Case and Combined Scenario.

Specifically, this report provides results for the following storage terminals and emission scenarios:

Edmonton Terminal (ET);

• Combined ET results including nearby facilities

BT;

WMT;

combined BT, WMT and marine emissions assessment which included:

• BT;

• WMT;

• Project-related marine transportation including underway traffic, berth and anchorage

locations; and,

non-Project vessel underway traffic, berth and anchorage locations based on the Environment

Canada Marine Emission Inventory (MEIT), updated to year 2015 (SNC-Lavalin Environment 2013).

https://docs.neb-one.gc.ca/ll-eng/llisapi.dll/fetch/2000/90464/90552/548311/956726/2392873/2451003/2393181/B6-9_-_V5C_TR_5C4_01of8_AIR_GHG_-_A3S1U0.pdf?nodeid=2392891&vernum=-2

https://docs.neb-one.gc.ca/ll-eng/llisapi.dll/fetch/2000/90464/90552/548311/956726/2392873/2451003/2393181/B6-16_-_V5C_TR_5C4_08of8_AIR_GHG_-_A3S1U7.pdf?nodeid=2393183&vernum=-2

https://docs.neb-one.gc.ca/ll-eng/llisapi.dll/fetch/2000/90464/90552/548311/956726/2392873/2451003/2499084/B255-31_-_Part_3_Air_Quality_Assessment_Update_Westridge_Burnaby_-_A4A4E3.pdf?nodeid=2499085&vernum=-2


RWDI#1602001 April 7, 2017

rwdi.com Page 2

The Sumas Terminal engineering design has not changed significantly; therefore, the air dispersion modelling

was not updated. The air dispersion modelling results for Sumas Terminal presented in Supplemental

Technical Report No. 2 remain valid.

Objectives

This supplemental report presents the changes to the assumptions which were used in the air quality

assessment presented in the 2013 Technical Report and Supplemental Technical Report No. 2. As the detailed

engineering for the Project has progressed, the assumptions used in the technical air quality assessment

were refined.

The objectives of this supplemental report are to:

• inform the engineering design for appropriate stack locations and stack heights;

• ensure that the ongoing engineering design of new storage tanks and vapour control configurations

continue to meet the applicable ambient air quality objectives at the ET, BT and WMT; and

• fulfill commitments for updated air quality modelling made through the NEB process.

The air quality modelling presented in this supplemental report was completed as part of the iterative

engineering design process and presents a more representative estimation of the potential effects of the

Project. This supplemental report is focused on key air quality indicators. Dispersion modelling results for

Criteria Air Contaminants (CACs), benzene, toluene, ethyl benzene, xylenes (BTEX), hydrogen sulphide (H2S),

and mercaptans were included in this study for the Base and Application Cases. The combined effects

assessment for the BT, WMT and all marine transportation was also updated. As noted in the previous

section, the changes to Sumas Terminal were not significant; therefore, the air dispersion modelling was not

updated for Sumas Terminal.

Dispersion modelling results were reported in the draft AEMPs. Technical details for the updated modelling

results were not provided in the AEMPs, but are reported herein.

2 CHANGES TO TECHNICAL APPROACH

As noted in the 2013 Technical Report and Supplemental Technical Report No. 2, the predicted air quality

results in the Application were based on preliminary engineering design. In addition to updated engineering

design, many refinements have been made to the assumptions that are used in the air quality modelling. The

detailed summary of changes between the 2013 Technical Report, Supplemental Technical Report No. 2 and

Supplemental Technical Report No. 3 is provided in Appendix A. The most important changes and updates

since Technical Report No. 2 are as follows:

1. Updated versions of the CALPUFF dispersion model (v. 7.2.1) and CALMET meteorological model (v.

6.5.0) were used as required by the British Columbia Ministry of Environment (BC MOE 2015) and

Alberta Environment and Parks (AEP 2013).

2. Land use mapping was updated (in particular for Burnaby Mountain, forested/wetland surfaces near

WMT, and urban area for the City of Edmonton). The updated land use for the ET and BT/WMT


RWDI#1602001 April 7, 2017

rwdi.com Page 3

Regional Study Areas (RSA) are included in Appendix B along with detailed CALMET/CALPUFF

modelling setup specifications.

3. Site layouts for ET, BT and WMT were updated. The locations and stack parameters for the Tank

Vapour Adsorption Units (TVAUs) were finalized at ET and BT.

4. Volatile Organic Compound (VOC) collection efficiencies for the Project TVAUs were assumed to be

99.5% at ET and BT. Removal efficiencies for H2S and mercaptans were assumed to be 99.9% and

99.7%, respectively.

5. VOC collection efficiencies at berths during tanker loading at WMT were assumed to be 99.5%.

6. Final design basis for average H2S and mercaptan concentrations in the collected VOCs for the TVAUs

at ET and BT, and VRUs/VCU at WMT were established.

7. The performance specifications and the mass emission rates for the VRUs and VCU were finalized.

8. The Project-related and non-Project marine vessel emissions contribution into the combined BT,

WMT and marine emissions assessment were updated.

9. The external facilities analysis for ET was updated. Ambient background concentrations for ET were

also updated.

Sections 2.1 to 2.9 discuss each of these changes in more detail.

CALPUFF/CALMET Model Versions

The CALMET/CALPUFF dispersion modelling system was used to estimate ambient concentrations of CACs

and VOCs due to existing and projected future emissions from the ET, BT and WMT, associated with the

Project. CALMET is a meteorological model that develops hourly three-dimensional meteorological fields of

wind and temperature used to drive pollutant transport within CALPUFF. CALPUFF is a multi-layer, non-

steady-state puff dispersion model. It simulates the effects of time- and space-varying meteorological

conditions on pollutant transport, transformation and deposition.

The CALPUFF dispersion model (v. 7.2.1) and CALMET meteorological model (v. 6.5.0) were used for this

assessment, as required by the BC MOE (2015) and AEP (2013).

Land Use for CALMET Modelling As per Revised Final Argument (Filing ID A4W6L8, page 251), Trans Mountain committed to updating the older land use mapping (i.e., Burnaby mountain and forested/wetland surfaces near WMT) for the updated dispersion modelling to inform engineering design. The updated land use for the Burnaby/Westridge RSA is included in Appendix B1. Although correctly implemented according to the BC modelling guideline (BC MOE 2015), the land use was updated to integrate more recent imagery. Detailed attention was paid in the vicinity of the WMT, and to Burnaby Mountain and Burnaby Lake Park in particular. Areas that were previously classified as irrigated or non-irrigated agricultural land are now simply classified as agricultural land. Additionally, areas previously classified simply as forest have now been split into either coniferous or mixed forest. Forested areas outside, or near the boundary of, urban areas were reclassified as coniferous forest. Forested areas within urban areas, such as parks, were classified as mixed forest.

https://docs.neb-one.gc.ca/ll-eng/llisapi.dll/fetch/2000/90464/90552/548311/956726/2392873/2451003/2887981/B444-2_-_Trans_Mountain_Revised_Final_Argument_%28clean%29_-_A4W6L8.pdf?nodeid=2887518&vernum=-2


RWDI#1602001 April 7, 2017

rwdi.com Page 4

Some other changes to land use include reclassifying the tidal areas of beaches from water to wetland, as they are only wet for part of the day. Golf courses were reclassified from non-irrigated agricultural land to rangeland. Low density urban areas within and/or surrounded by forest were reclassified from urban to coniferous or mixed forest, based on the area. Some parks and small forested areas were previously misclassified as urban, and so were reclassified as forest. The shoreline of the Burrard Inlet and Fraser River were adjusted in the digital terrain map to reflect current features and classify some features such as docks as urban, rather than water.

The main change to land use at the ET included updating the urban category extent to match the actual city limits. Some other changes to land use included better reflection of the North Saskatchewan River, wetland areas and barren land areas. Adjustments to the land use were conducted using the tools available in the Environmental Systems Research Institute (ESRI) Geographic Information System (GIS) software (i.e., ArcGIS). The adjustments were checked using satellite imagery dated to July 14, 2014 in Google Earth and in some cases, photographs available through Google Earth were consulted to confirm forest type.

Site Layouts

Each TVAU stack was modelled venting vertically (i.e., upwards), and the stack height was set equal to the

TVAU carbon vessel height. Figure 1 and Figure 2 show updated site layouts for ET and BT, respectively. The

updated WMT layout is shown in Figure 3 and includes finalized VRUs/VCU and main building locations, in

addition to the inclusion of the crash barrier along the north side of the railway. It should be noted that the

tanks shown in the figures are represented as octagonal instead of circular because the tank structures were

modelled as octagons as a modelling simplification. In reality, all of the storage tanks will be circular.

Modelling the bodies of the tanks as buildings takes into account downwash of tank emissions in the wake of

the storage tanks. Building downwash effects are modelled using the U.S. EPA Building Profile Input Program

Plume Rise Model Enhancement (BPIP-PRIME) algorithm (AEP 2013), based on information related to the

dimensions and locations of the structures with respect to the emission source.


RWDI#1602001 April 7, 2017

rwdi.com Page 5

Figure 1: Edmonton Terminal Application Case Layout

Figure 2: Burnaby Terminal Application Case Layout


RWDI#1602001 April 7, 2017

rwdi.com Page 6

Figure 3: Westridge Marine Terminal Application Case Layout

VOC Collection and Destruction Efficiencies for the TVAUs

Each new storage tank at ET and BT for the Project will be connected to a TVAU. The purpose of the TVAUs is

to add buoyancy to the fugitive tank vapours, and reduce sulphur emissions. All collected vapours will be

directed to an activated carbon filled vessel, from which they will be directed to a vent. There will only be one

carbon bed for each TVAU. It was assumed that there will be enough warning when a bed is near saturation

to ensure that replacement carbon is already available and that there is no change in operations. A

continuous monitor on each vent stack will measure H2S concentrations to a minimum detection level of

0.5 ppmv and be used to inform the need for carbon replacement.

The collection efficiency for VOC vapours for the Project storage tanks with TVAUs is expected to be 99.5% or

greater at ET and BT. The following design for the TVAU system will apply, to ensure this collection efficiency:

• Sealed tanks with pressure vacuum relief valves (PVRVs) consistent with estimate basis (as opposed

to rim vented tanks). Current basis for the tanks is steel pontoon internal floating roofs with steel

cone fixed roofs (Internal Floating Roof or IFRT design);

• Tanks operate under slight vacuum when filling; and

• Standing losses from the tank are minimized by avoiding any venting from the PVRVs. This will be

achieved by having the blowers cycle on and off at a pressure set point in the vapour line to the TVAU

that is below the pressure set point of the PVRV (i.e., the blowers will turn on and remove vapours

from the tank before the PVRVs lift and vent the tank vapours) to atmosphere.


RWDI#1602001 April 7, 2017

rwdi.com Page 7

The TVAU carbon supplier has estimated the removal efficiency of odour containing compounds such as H2S

and mercaptans to be 99.9% and 99.7%, respectively. Based on the preliminary design, Trans Mountain has

conservatively estimated the collection efficiency as 99.5% as discussed above. Therefore, the total efficiency

for removal of H2S and mercaptans from all available VOC gases will be 99.4% and 99.2%, respectively.

VOC Collection Efficiencies at Berth Locations

Kinder Morgan tested three tankers while loading at their facility in Galena Park, Texas, USA, which has a

vapour collection setup similar to the WMT. The test demonstrated VOC collection efficiencies during loading

to be between 99.865% and 99.985% (International Liquid Terminals Association 2014). This study noted that

the United States Environmental Protection Association (U.S. EPA) AP-42 emission factors, along with the

default collection efficiency of 95%, are outdated and unrealistic (U.S. EPA 2008a). Trans Mountain has

committed to meet a collection efficiency of 99.5% (Filing ID A4W6L8, page 247).

Fugitive emissions at the existing and proposed berths (assuming 99.5% collection efficiency) were modelled

based on the Levelton Consultants Ltd. tanker loading sampling results at the WMT (Levelton 2015), which are

summarized in Table 1. The average emission factor over all products was 547 mg/l of oil. This is the average

amount of VOCs produced per liter of oil loaded, and was used to calculate the fugitive emissions. This value

is similar to the maximum peak emissions for the most common High-TAN1 product transferred through the

WMT (i.e., 491 mg/l of oil loaded).

Table 1 includes VOC emission factors for two High-TAN products that are expected to be loaded at WMT. The

measured VOC emissions were much higher from the April 18 and April 25, 2015 surveys and were included

in the average calculation as a conservatism.

For comparison, U.S. EPA AP-42 emission factors for loading operations for crude oil range from 73 to 120

mg/l of oil loaded (U.S. EPA 2008a); this range of values is about five to eight times lower than the value used

in this assessment.

Table 1: Levelton measured tanker loading VOC emission results at WMT (mg/l of oil loaded)

VOC Emissions

5-Jan-15 2-Feb-15 14-Feb-15 18-Apr-15 27-Apr-15 Average

High-TAN product

Most common High-TAN product

Most common High-TAN product

High-TAN product which is not going to be

transferred through WMT

High-TAN product which is not going to be transferred through WMT

All Products

Minimum 147 154 135 1105 288 366

Maximum (Peak) 255 295 491 1525 2776 1068

Average 192 233 352 1273 686 547

Note: Shaded grey values were not used in the average calculations.

1 TAN – Total Acid Number is the value, which indicates the quantity of acidifying compounds present in a petrochemical sample.

https://docs.neb-one.gc.ca/ll-eng/llisapi.dll/fetch/2000/90464/90552/548311/956726/2392873/2451003/2887981/B444-2_-_Trans_Mountain_Revised_Final_Argument_%28clean%29_-_A4W6L8.pdf?nodeid=2887518&vernum=-2


RWDI#1602001 April 7, 2017

rwdi.com Page 8

H2S and Mercaptan Concentrations

Product selection is important for estimating fugitive VOC emissions and speciating the dispersion model

results into the contaminants of interest. Due to the multitude of products that may be delivered via the

Trans Mountain pipeline, representative products were selected for modelling purposes. Several products

were considered based on the following:

• highest H2S and mercaptans liquid content;

• highest BTEX liquid content;

• Reid vapour pressure;

• product throughput; and,

• availability in the TANKS model (for refined products).

Since the initial Trans Mountain facility emissions modelling was completed and filed in the 2013 Technical

Report, updated process specifications for the Trans Mountain pipeline terminals have been prepared,

including updated tank product assignments. This supplemental report and assessment incorporates

updated selection of representative products based on the most up to date product information available.

The air quality assessment now uses five representative products: High TAN Dilbit and Low TAN Dilbit to

represent super heavy and heavy grades respectively, light sour and synthetic/sweet grades, and ethanol

blended gasoline (to represent iso-octane) to represent refined products. These products were selected to be

conservatively representative for each listed category based on their high vapour pressure and BTEX, H2S and

mercaptans contents.

Since Supplemental Technical Report No. 2 was prepared, more comprehensive H2S and mercaptans analysis

in crude oil products has been included based on:

• vapour composition headspace sampling for heavy crude (High TAN/Low-TAN Dilbit) performed at

the ET; and,

• liquid composition sampling at the ET in 2015 for the light sour and synthetic/sweet grade products.

Based on these analyses, vapour concentration values of 4500 ppmv H2S and 500 ppmv mercaptans for

heavy crude were selected as the design basis average values and were used in this assessment. Slightly

lower values of 3398 ppmv H2S and 335 ppmv mercaptans were used to represent the light sour and

synthetic/sweet grade products, respectively.

Mass Emission Rates for the VRUs and VCU

Vapour Recovery Units

The vapours emitted during tanker loading will be collected and piped to shore using the WMT vapour

collection systems and the VOCs will either be recovered in the VRUs and/or incinerated in the VCU.

Since sulphur compounds, which have the potential to cause nuisance odours, cannot be effectively handled

in the VRUs, they will be removed separately. The H2S adsorption vessels will be located upstream of the VRUs

and mercaptan adsorption vessels will be located downstream of the VRUs. Figure 4 shows an equipment

schematic proposed for WMT. The locations of the H2S and mercaptan adsorption units are specific to the


RWDI#1602001 April 7, 2017

rwdi.com Page 9

process design of the VRUs. Due to the concentration of the H2S/mercaptans and the inert atmosphere, the

adsorption vessels will be filled with Addsorb VA12 potassium iodide (KI) impregnated carbon. This carbon

was chosen because of its high capacity for H2S conversion to elemental sulphur. The mercaptans convert to

disulfides (also by oxidation) and then the disulfides are adsorbed onto the carbon.


RWDI#1602001 April 7, 2017

rwdi.com Page 10

Figure 4: Proposed Vapour Control System at Westridge Marine Terminal

Definitions Estimated Utilizations (Normal Operating Periods)

H2S = Hydrogen Sulphide VRU #1 = 43.3%

VOC = Volatile Organic Compound VRU #2 = 43.3%

VRU = Vapour Recovery Unit VCU = 3.8%

VCU = Vapour Combustion Unit (Thermal Oxidizer)Estimated Efficiencies (@ Full Capacity)

General Notes: Collection System = 99.5%

1) Loading capacity = 4,637 m3/hr (111,290 m3/day; 700,000 bbl/day) per berth. H2S Absorbers = 99.5% to 99.97%

2) Inerting gases, mostly comprised of CO2, are generated by the tanker. VOC Adsorbers = 99.0%

3) Isolating/diversion valves are not shown. Mercaptan Adsorbers = 99.9%

4) A chilled water system & heat exchangers provide cooling in the VRUs. VCU = 99.0% to 99.9%

Liquids Vessel

Dock Line #2From

Burnaby Terminal

Tanker Loadingat Berth #2

Cut-Away Viewof Cargo Tank

Any stream maybe divertedto the VCU.

Burnaby TerminalFrom

Dock Line #3From

Burnaby Terminal

Inerting Gases& Crude Oil

Crude Oil

VRU #1Recovered VOC

Crude OilDelivery Piping

VapourBlowers

Berth #2Safety Unit

To Berth #3

To Berth #2

To Berth #1

FromBerth #3

From Berth #2

VapourCollection Piping

VRU #1

VRU #2Vent Stack

VRU #1

VRU #1

Vessel B

VOC AdsorptionVessel A

VRU #2

Vacuum PumpsVRU #1

Exhaust StreamInerting Gases

MethaneEthane

VRU #1Mercaptan

Adsorption Vessel

CompressorsVRU #1

Vessel B

VCU

VCUVent Stack

VRU #1Vacuum Boosters

VRU #2

Dock Line #1

Vent Stack

VOC AdsorptionVessel A

VRU #2Recovered VOCLiquids Vessel

MercaptanAdsorption Vessel

VRU #2

Exhaust StreamInerting Gases

MethaneEthane

Exhaust StreamCombustion

Gases

VRU #2 VRU #2Vacuum Boosters Vacuum Pumps Compressors

NO SMOKINGSAFETY FIRST

VRU #2VOC Adsorption

H2S AdsorptionVessel A

H2S AdsorptionVessel B

H2S AdsorptionVessel C

FromBerth #1

Vapours

Vessel C maybe dedicatedto the VCU.

Diversion manifoldis not shown.

VOC Adsorption

NEB CONDITIONS 79 AND 52 SUPPLEMENTAL AIR QUALITY TECHNICAL REPORT NO. 3 RWDI#1602001 April 7, 2017

rwdi.com Page 11

The proposed collection and removal efficiencies for the VOC vapours for the VRUs, including the

sulphur adsorption vessels, are summarized in Table 2. The final mass emission rates from the

stacks after applying collection and removal efficiencies for the proposed VRUs is presented in

Section 6.1.2.

Table 2: Collection and Removal Efficiencies for the Proposed VRUs

Parameter VRUs

Collection Efficiency 99.5%[1]

H2S Removal Efficiency (through adsorption vessel upstream of the VRUs) 99.5%-99.97%[2]

Mercaptan Removal Efficiency (through adsorption vessel downstream of the VRUs) 99.9%[3]

VOCs Removal Efficiency 99.0%[4]

Benzene Removal Efficiency 99.0%[5]

Notes: [1] Uncollected vapours (0.5% fugitive emissions from tankers).

[2] For inlet H2S concentrations ranging from 200 ppmv to 4500 ppmv, respectively.

[3] For inlet methyl mercaptan concentration ranging from 50 ppmv to 500 ppmv.

[4] Based on mass emission rate of 2.4 mg VOC vented per liter of liquid loaded.

[5] Based on mass emission rate of 2.2 mg/Nm3 vented (vapor volume vented can be assumed to be approximately equivalent to the inlet vapor volume).

Vapour Combustion Unit

The VCU will only be used when three tankers are being loaded simultaneously, or when two tankers

are being loaded simultaneously and one of the VRUs is out of service for maintenance. This is

anticipated to be less than 5% of the time. The H2S adsorption vessels located upstream of the VRUs

are also located upstream of the VCU. This will ensure that H2S is removed prior to the combustion of

the vapour stream and that the creation of SO2 is minimized (this would otherwise occur through the

combustion of H2S and other reduced sulphur species). The collection and destruction efficiencies for

collected vapours for the VCU are summarized in Table 3. The VCU destruction efficiency for BTEX is

expected to be greater than 99%. In fact, a recent Trans Mountain emissions survey demonstrated

that the existing VCU destruction efficiency is more than 99.99% for total VOCs (Levelton 2014). The

final mass emission rates from the proposed VCU after applying collection and combustion

efficiencies for the proposed VCU are presented in Section 6.1.2.


rwdi.com Page 12

Table 3: Collection and Destruction Efficiencies for the Proposed VCU

Parameter VCU

Collection Efficiency 99.5%[1]

H2S Removal Efficiency (through adsorption vessel upstream of the VCU) 99.5%-99.97%[2]

H2S Combustion Efficiency 99%[3]

Mercaptan Combustion Efficiency 99.9%[4]

VOCs Destruction Efficiency 99.0%

Benzene Destruction Efficiency 99.0%

Notes: [1] Uncollected vapours (0.5% fugitive emissions from tankers).

[2] For inlet H2S concentrations ranging from 200 ppmv to 4500 ppmv.

[3] H2S combustion efficiency for the H2S portion not being collected in the adsorption vessel.

[4] Mercaptans are not being adsorbed prior to the VCU-destined vapour stream.

Project-Related and Non-Project Marine Vessel Emissions Contribution into Combined BT, WMT and Marine Emissions Assessment

Project-related Marine Vessel Emissions Contribution

Project-related marine emissions were taken from the Supplemental Marine Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas

Technical Report #2 (Filing ID A4F5H8) (referred to in this document as “Supplemental Marine Report”).

Although it was demonstrated that boiler emissions were insignificant in the Port of Vancouver, Environment

and Climate Change Canada (ECCC) and Metro Vancouver (MV) raised concerns that boiler emissions were

earlier excluded from the final estimates in the report. Therefore, tanker boiler emissions for berth,

anchorage and underway vessels were included in this assessment.

Non-Project Marine Vessel Emissions Contribution

Non-Project marine emissions for underway traffic, berth and anchorage locations, were modelled with the

year 2010 Marine Emission Inventory Tool (MEIT) (for Base and Application Cases) and year 2030 MEIT

(Cumulative Case) in the Marine Air Quality RSA in the Supplemental Marine Report (Filing ID A4F5H8).

In this assessment, year 2015 MEIT emission estimates were used for the Base and Application Cases, to

introduce the benefit of lower sulphur content in marine distillate fuel currently in use. The summary of

annual emissions for the years 2010 and 2015 are presented in Table 4 and Table 5, respectively, for

underway and anchorage/berth emission sources.

Total sulphur dioxide (SO2), nitrogen dioxide (NO2) and particulate matter (PM) emissions are lower for 2015

in comparison to 2010, while carbon monoxide (CO) and VOC concentrations are slightly higher. Lower PM

and SO2 emissions are the result of the more stringent fuel sulphur regulations. Marine fuel oil used in non-

https://docs.neb-one.gc.ca/ll-eng/llisapi.dll/fetch/2000/90464/90552/548311/956726/2392873/2451003/2578063/B290-45_-_Part_3_Marine_AQ_Supp_Technical_Report_2_Pt01_-_A4F5H8.pdf?nodeid=2578729&vernum=-2



rwdi.com Page 13

Project related marine vessels is required to meet the 0.1% sulphur content limit required in Emission

Control Areas (ECAs), since January 1, 2015 (Chamber of Shipping, 2014). Therefore, marine vessels will need

to use these distillate fuels in the North American ECA.

A summary of all changes related to marine vessel emission rates among the three RWDI marine air quality

reports is provided in Appendix C.


rwdi.com Page 14

Table 4: Years 2010 and 2015 MEIT Underway Annual Emissions by Vessel Class (in tonnes/year)

Vessel Class PM10 PM2.5 CO NOx SO2 VOC CO2e

Year 2010

Coast Guard 1 1 4 48 1 2 2,373

Fishing 15 14 78 947 10 44 37,974

Merchant Bulk 190 174 203 2228 1485 87 86,453

Merchant Container 302 278 330 3572 2268 150 129,638

Merchant Cruise 47 43 59 684 322 27 31,775

Merchant Other 68 62 72 765 519 32 31,036

Merchant Passenger 350 322 449 5088 2463 194 269,320

Special Purpose 1 1 4 44 0 2 1,758

Tanker 51 47 51 518 408 84 21,100

Tug Boat 31 29 131 1704 25 63 82,092

War 5 5 26 286 5 12 14,229

Total 2010 1060 975 1406 15,884 7505 696 707,749

Year 2015

Coast Guard 2 2 11 134 0 5 6,644

Fishing 19 17 100 1200 4 54 51,156

Merchant Bulk 51 47 260 2740 77 111 108,676


Merchant Cruise 19 17 73 835 28 33 39,008

Merchant Other 15 14 77 793 22 34 32,433

Merchant Passenger 104 96 488 5336 9 212 292,834

Special Purpose 3 3 15 180 1 7 8,990

Tanker 10 9 53 518 15 86 21,746

Tug Boat 45 42 207 2489 20 96 124,569

War 7 6 32 376 3 15 18,935

Total 2015 362 333 1775 19,482 306 862 880,002

Overall Change in Emissions Relative to Year 2010 (%)

-66 -66 26 23 -96 24 24


rwdi.com Page 15

Table 5: Years 2010 and 2015 MEIT Berth and Anchorage Annual Emissions by Vessel Class (in tonnes/year)

Vessel Class PM10 PM2.5 CO NOx SO2 VOC CO2e

Year 2010

Coast Guard 0 0 0 1 0 0 27

Fishing 0 0 0 0 0 0 1

Merchant Bulk 202 185 210 1658 1935 55 138,368


Merchant Cruise 37 34 59 585 271 23 33,994

Merchant Other 45 42 47 467 387 14 30,720

Merchant Passenger 0 0 0 1 1 0 62

Special Purpose 0 0 0 1 0 0 31

Tanker 37 34 35 252 382 283 23,093

Tug Boat 0 0 0 2 0 0 163

War 0 0 0 0 0 0 86

Total 2010 372 342 424 3,543 3,433 394 274,390

Year 2015

Coast Guard 0 0 0 1 0 0 27

Fishing 0 0 0 0 0 0 1

Merchant Bulk 55 51 271 2003 109 71 178,469


Merchant Cruise 17 16 73 725 29 28 41,771

Merchant Other 11 10 50 446 20 15 32,431

Merchant Passenger 0 0 0 1 0 0 65

Special Purpose 0 0 0 1 0 0 31

Tanker 7 6 36 249 15 292 23,955

Tug Boat 0 0 0 2 0 0 171

War 0 0 0 0 0 0 86

Total 2015 112 103 532 4185 212 433 343,504

Overall Change in Emissions Relative to Year 2010 (%)

-70 -70 25 18 -94 10 25


rwdi.com Page 16

External Facilities Analysis near Edmonton Terminal

The Alberta Air Quality Model Guideline (AQMG) requires that all industrial emission sources within a

minimum of 5 km from the Project be included in the dispersion modelling (AEP 2013). In the 2013 Technical

Report, a total of 22 industrial sources within 5 km from the Edmonton Terminal were identified from the

National Pollutant Release Inventory (NPRI) database for 2011 (ECCC 2013). These were included in the

modelling for the ET RSA and were updated to more recent data from NPRI Year 2014 (ECCC 2016).

The emission source parameters for the external facilities have not changed since the 2013 Technical Report;

only the emission rates have been updated, with the exception of KMC Edmonton North Forty Terminal

which is located immediately adjacent to, and within the same facility boundary as the ET. Emissions by

source and source parameters for modelling were obtained from the Edmonton Terminal Expansion Project

ESA (Jacques Whitford AXYS 2007). The product for each storage tank was confirmed with KMC prior to

modelling. Since total VOC emissions from the Edmonton North Forty Terminal were not reported in the

2013 Technical Report, total VOC emissions were estimated as a function of the NPRI reported benzene

emissions and the benzene-to-total VOC ratio based on actual product speciation profiles.

Ambient background concentrations near ET were updated in accordance with the AQMG (AEP 2013).

Background H2S and BTEX concentrations were developed based on data from the National Air Pollution

Surveillance Network (NAPS) Edmonton East station. The H2S ambient concentrations were calculated using

hourly data for the year 2015, and BTEX ambient concentrations were calculated using daily data (i.e., four to

five measurements per month) based on the years 2009 to 2014. This is a conservative approach as the

Edmonton East station is about 200 m from the ET so double-counting of emissions from ET may occur in

some cases.

3 AMBIENT AIR QUALITY OBJECTIVES

Trans Mountain has committed to meeting the most stringent applicable ambient air quality objectives listed

in Table 6 for ET, BT and WMT. As detailed in the footnotes under the table, to address the contaminants of

interest, these objectives were drawn from several government regulators including MV, BC MOE, AEP,

OMECC, Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment (CCME) and ECCC. Some of the objectives for BT

and WMT that Trans Mountain has agreed to comply with are taken from Alberta, in the absence of BC, MV or

National objectives.


rwdi.com Page 17

Table 6: Ambient Air Quality Objectives (in µg/m3)

Contaminant Averaging

Period AEP BC MOE Metro

Vancouver National

PM2.5 24-hour 30 25[1] 25 27 to 28[4]

Annual n/a 8 8 8.8 to 10[5]

CO 1-hour 15,000 14,300 30,000 15,000

8-hour 6,000 5,500 10,000 6,000

NO2

1-hour 300 n/a 200 400

1-hour 98th n/a 188[2] n/a n/a

24-hour n/a n/a n/a 200

Annual 45 n/a 40 60

SO2

1-hour 450 n/a 196 170 to 183[6]

1-hour 99th n/a 200[3] n/a n/a

24-hour 125 n/a 125 n/a

Annual 20 25 30 10.5 to 13.1[7]

Benzene 1-hour 30 n/a n/a n/a

Annual 3 n/a n/a n/a

Ethyl benzene 1-hour 2,000 n/a n/a n/a

Toluene 1-hour 1,880 n/a n/a n/a

24-hour 400 n/a n/a n/a

Xylenes 1-hour 2,300 n/a n/a n/a


TRS 1-hour n/a 7

14 acceptable 7 desirable

n/a

24-hour n/a 3 n/a n/a

H2S 1-hour 14 n/a n/a n/a


Total Mercaptans

10-minute 13[8] n/a n/a n/a

References: AEP (2016), BC MOE (2016), CCME (1999, 2015, 2016), OMECC (2012)

Notes: n/a not available Highlighted cells indicate the value to be met.

[1] The BC Provincial PM2.5 24-hour objective is based on 98th percentile values.

[2] Based on daily 1-hour maximum, annual 98th percentile of 1 year data.

[3] Based on daily 1-hour maximum, annual 99th percentile of 1 year data.

[4] The Canadian Ambient Air Quality Standard (CAAQS) is 28 µg/m3 in 2015 and 27 µg/m3 in 2020; compliance based on annual 98th percentile value, averaged over three consecutive years.

[5] The CAAQS is 10.0 µg/m³ for 2015 and 8.8 µg/m³ for 2020; compliance based on the average taken over three consecutive years.

[6] The CAAQS is 183 µg/m³ for 2020 and 170 µg/m³ for 2025; compliance based on 3-year average of the annual 99th percentile of the SO2 daily maximum 1-hour average concentrations.

[7] The CAAQS is 13.1 µg/m³ for 2020 and 10.5 µg/m³ for 2025; compliance based on the arithmetic average over a single year of all 1-hour average SO2 concentrations.

[8] The 10-minute Ontario Ambient Air Quality Criteria has been presented for comparison.


rwdi.com Page 18

4 EDMONTON TERMINAL MODEL PARAMETERS AND RESULTS

Trans Mountain has made a commitment that the maximum predicted concentrations from the Project will

meet all applicable ambient air quality objectives. The updated predicted results are anticipated to be more

representative of expected Project-related effects than the 2013 results or those provided in Supplemental

Technical Report No. 2, since new information from the iterative engineering design process has been included.

Updated modelled parameters and dispersion modelling results for CACs, BTEX, H2S, and mercaptans for the

Base (Existing) and Application (Existing plus Project) cases for ET, BT and WMT are presented in this section.

Combined results including all nearby adjacent facilities for the ET, and all marine transportation combined

with BT and WMT, are also provided. The model parameters and predicted results are still based on preliminary

design and may change as the design continues to evolve.

Appendix B2 provides the non-default CALMET and CALPUFF switch settings, land use cover, and assessment of

CALMET-estimated parameters.

Model Parameters

Base Case

The updated modelling for the Base Case of the ET considered thirty-five tanks holding heavy crude, light sweet

or light sour crude, and refined products. Tank design and products for the Base Case are provided in Table 7.

Resultant hourly and annual emission rates are summarized in Table 8 and Table 9, respectively. Tank emission

rates were estimated following the same approach as discussed in Section 3.4.2.2 of the 2013 Technical Report.


rwdi.com Page 19

Table 7: Edmonton Storage Tank Design and Assumed Product, Base Case

Tank ID Tank Design Diameter (ft)

Height (ft)

Working Volume (kbbl) Product Stored

E05 EFRT 120.0 40.0 63 Refined Products

E06 EFRT 120.0 40.0 66 Heavy Crude

E07 DEFRT 120.0 40.0 60 Light Sweet Crude



E10 EFRT 150.0 48.0 128 Light Sour Crude

E11 EFRT 150.0 48.0 122 Light Sweet Crude






E17 DEFRT 150.0 52.0 135 Refined Products



E20 DEFRT 150.0 49.5 130 Light Sour Crude


E22 DEFRT 180.0 52.0 201 Heavy Crude



















rwdi.com Page 20

Table 8: Edmonton Storage Tanks Maximum Hourly Emission Rates, Base Case (in g/s)

Tank ID Maximum Hourly Emission Rate

H2S Mercaptans Benzene Toluene Ethyl benzene Xylenes

E05 0 0 9.04E-03 3.99E-02 2.76E-03 1.36E-02

E06 1.73E-02 2.27E-03 4.43E-03 1.24E-03 4.04E-05 4.71E-04

E07 3.01E-04 4.19E-05 1.28E-04 1.39E-04 1.48E-05 4.79E-05

E08 0 0 9.04E-03 3.99E-02 2.76E-03 1.36E-02

E09 0 0 3.35E-03 1.75E-02 1.21E-03 5.96E-03

E10 4.79E-03 1.46E-03 1.39E-03 1.33E-03 1.46E-04 4.23E-04

E11 2.49E-03 3.47E-04 1.06E-03 1.15E-03 1.22E-04 3.97E-04

E12 2.49E-03 3.47E-04 1.06E-03 1.15E-03 1.22E-04 3.97E-04

E13 8.49E-04 1.18E-04 3.62E-04 3.92E-04 4.17E-05 1.35E-04

E14 2.49E-03 3.47E-04 1.06E-03 1.15E-03 1.22E-04 3.97E-04

E15 8.49E-04 1.18E-04 3.62E-04 3.92E-04 4.17E-05 1.35E-04

E16 3.66E-03 4.80E-04 9.35E-04 5.00E-04 1.62E-05 1.89E-04

E17 0 0 3.23E-04 1.43E-03 9.88E-05 4.85E-04

E18 0 0 3.64E-03 1.61E-02 1.11E-03 5.45E-03

E19 0 0 6.64E-04 2.93E-03 2.03E-04 9.95E-04

E20 7.16E-04 2.19E-04 2.09E-04 2.00E-04 2.19E-05 6.33E-05

E21 3.75E-04 5.22E-05 1.60E-04 1.73E-04 1.84E-05 5.98E-05

E22 7.89E-04 1.04E-04 2.02E-04 1.08E-04 3.50E-06 4.09E-05

E23 1.85E-04 2.58E-05 7.90E-05 8.54E-05 9.09E-06 2.95E-05

E24 3.87E-03 5.08E-04 9.89E-04 5.29E-04 1.72E-05 2.00E-04

E25 3.87E-03 5.08E-04 9.89E-04 5.29E-04 1.72E-05 2.00E-04

E26 3.66E-03 4.80E-04 9.35E-04 5.00E-04 1.62E-05 1.89E-04

E27 9.39E-04 1.31E-04 4.01E-04 4.33E-04 4.61E-05 1.50E-04

E28 4.05E-03 5.31E-04 1.03E-03 5.53E-04 1.80E-05 2.10E-04

E29 3.74E-03 4.90E-04 9.55E-04 5.11E-04 1.66E-05 1.93E-04

E30 3.74E-03 4.90E-04 9.55E-04 5.11E-04 1.66E-05 1.93E-04

E31 4.05E-03 5.31E-04 1.03E-03 5.53E-04 1.80E-05 2.10E-04

E32 4.05E-03 5.31E-04 1.03E-03 5.53E-04 1.80E-05 2.10E-04

E33 3.87E-03 5.08E-04 9.89E-04 5.29E-04 1.72E-05 2.00E-04

E34 9.39E-04 1.31E-04 4.01E-04 4.33E-04 4.61E-05 1.50E-04

E35 4.05E-03 5.31E-04 1.03E-03 5.53E-04 1.80E-05 2.10E-04

E36 4.05E-03 5.31E-04 1.03E-03 5.53E-04 1.80E-05 2.10E-04

E37 8.98E-04 1.25E-04 3.83E-04 4.14E-04 4.41E-05 1.43E-04

E38 8.98E-04 1.25E-04 3.83E-04 4.14E-04 4.41E-05 1.43E-04

E39 8.98E-04 1.25E-04 3.83E-04 4.14E-04 4.41E-05 1.43E-04

Notes: All emission rates include standing losses, and some emission rates include both standing and working losses. The number of tanks with working losses is based on the maximum number of pumps in operation at the same time. The emission rates that include maximum working losses for each contaminant have been highlighted in grey.

The working losses were calculated based on existing operating limits. The maximum outbound rate from the Edmonton Terminal to the existing Trans Mountain Pipeline is 2,770 m3/h, which was used in this assessment. This is a conservative assumption, because according to the Control Center, the flow rate does not typically exceed 2,400 m3/h.


rwdi.com Page 21

Table 9: Edmonton Storage Tanks Annual Emission Rates, Base Case (in t/y)

Tank ID Annual Emission Rate


E05 0 0 7.65E-02 3.38E-01 2.34E-02 1.15E-01

E06 7.89E-02 1.04E-02 2.02E-02 1.08E-02 3.50E-04 4.09E-03

E07 4.23E-03 5.90E-04 1.81E-03 1.95E-03 2.08E-04 6.75E-04

E08 0 0 7.65E-02 3.38E-01 2.34E-02 1.15E-01

E09 0 0 3.77E-02 1.66E-01 1.15E-02 5.65E-02

E10 4.22E-02 1.29E-02 1.23E-02 1.18E-02 1.29E-03 3.73E-03

E11 2.16E-02 3.01E-03 9.23E-03 9.98E-03 1.06E-03 3.45E-03

E12 2.17E-02 3.02E-03 9.23E-03 9.99E-03 1.06E-03 3.45E-03

E13 1.04E-02 1.45E-03 4.43E-03 4.79E-03 5.10E-04 1.65E-03

E14 2.16E-02 3.01E-03 9.23E-03 9.99E-03 1.06E-03 3.45E-03

E15 1.04E-02 1.45E-03 4.45E-03 4.82E-03 5.13E-04 1.66E-03

E16 4.31E-02 5.65E-03 1.10E-02 5.88E-03 1.91E-04 2.23E-03

E17 0 0 4.35E-03 1.92E-02 1.33E-03 6.52E-03

E18 0 0 4.13E-02 1.82E-01 1.26E-02 6.19E-02

E19 0 0 8.52E-03 3.76E-02 2.60E-03 1.28E-02

E20 1.10E-02 3.37E-03 3.20E-03 3.07E-03 3.36E-04 9.72E-04

E21 5.49E-03 7.65E-04 2.34E-03 2.53E-03 2.70E-04 8.75E-04

E22 1.17E-02 1.54E-03 3.00E-03 1.60E-03 5.20E-05 6.07E-04

E23 3.36E-03 4.67E-04 1.43E-03 1.55E-03 1.65E-04 5.35E-04

E24 4.68E-02 6.14E-03 1.20E-02 6.40E-03 2.08E-04 2.42E-03

E25 4.68E-02 6.14E-03 1.20E-02 6.40E-03 2.08E-04 2.42E-03

E26 4.38E-02 5.75E-03 1.12E-02 5.99E-03 1.94E-04 2.27E-03

E27 1.24E-02 1.73E-03 5.29E-03 5.72E-03 6.09E-04 1.98E-03

E28 4.94E-02 6.48E-03 1.26E-02 6.75E-03 2.19E-04 2.56E-03

E29 4.48E-02 5.88E-03 1.15E-02 6.13E-03 1.99E-04 2.32E-03

E30 4.47E-02 5.86E-03 1.14E-02 6.11E-03 1.98E-04 2.31E-03

E31 4.94E-02 6.48E-03 1.26E-02 6.75E-03 2.19E-04 2.56E-03

E32 4.94E-02 6.48E-03 1.26E-02 6.75E-03 2.19E-04 2.56E-03

E33 4.68E-02 6.14E-03 1.20E-02 6.40E-03 2.08E-04 2.42E-03

E34 1.24E-02 1.73E-03 5.28E-03 5.72E-03 6.09E-04 1.97E-03

E35 4.94E-02 6.48E-03 1.26E-02 6.75E-03 2.19E-04 2.56E-03

E36 4.93E-02 6.47E-03 1.26E-02 6.74E-03 2.19E-04 2.56E-03

E37 1.17E-02 1.63E-03 4.98E-03 5.39E-03 5.73E-04 1.86E-03

E38 1.17E-02 1.63E-03 4.98E-03 5.39E-03 5.73E-04 1.86E-03

E39 1.17E-02 1.63E-03 4.98E-03 5.39E-03 5.73E-04 1.86E-03

Notes: All emission rates include both standing and working losses.

Working losses for each tank are based on annual throughput, provided in Appendix A (Table A-3).


rwdi.com Page 22

Tank emissions were generally modelled in accordance with the Air Dispersion Modelling Guideline for

Ontario (OMECC 2009). Each floating roof tank was modelled with eight point sources around the

circumference of the tank, with the total emissions distributed equally among the circle of point sources. The

stack height was specified as the tank height. The stack diameter and exit velocity were set to 0.001 m and

0.001 m/s, respectively (OMECC 2009). The exit temperature was estimated to be the average of the ambient

temperature for the month with the highest emissions, and the product temperature.

Application Case

The updated modelling for the Application Case of the ET considered 39 tanks holding heavy crude, light sweet

or light sour crude, and refined products. Tank design and products for the Application Case are provided in

Table 10. All of the new Project tanks were modelled as Internal Floating Roof Tanks (IFRT) in the Application

Case. Resultant hourly and annual emission rates are summarized in Table 11 and Table 12, respectively.

Emission rates for H2S and mercaptans were developed assuming TVAUs on all of the proposed tanks, with a

total control efficiency of 99.4% for H2S and 99.2% for mercaptans based on updated information from the

TVAU vendor.


rwdi.com Page 23

Table 10: Edmonton Storage Tank Design and Assumed Product, Application Case


Height (ft)


E01 IFRT with TVAU 150.0 70.0 198 Heavy Crude

























E26 EFRT 150.0 70.0 198 Light Sour Crude














Notes: IFRT = Internal Floating Roof Tank, EFRT = External Floating Roof Tank, DEFRT = Domed External Floating Roof Tank and TVAU = Tank Vapour Adsorption Unit

All proposed tanks are highlighted in grey.


rwdi.com Page 24

Table 11: Edmonton Storage Tanks Maximum Hourly Emission Rates, Application Case (in g/s)


H2S [1] Mercaptans [1] Benzene Toluene Ethyl benzene Xylenes

E01 6.99E-06 1.46E-06 1.38E-03 7.39E-04 2.40E-05 2.80E-04

E02 1.30E-06 2.73E-07 2.58E-04 1.38E-04 4.48E-06 5.22E-05

E03 1.30E-06 2.73E-07 2.58E-04 1.38E-04 4.48E-06 5.22E-05

E04 1.30E-06 2.73E-07 2.58E-04 1.38E-04 4.48E-06 5.22E-05

E05 0 0 9.85E-03 4.35E-02 3.01E-03 1.48E-02

E06 0 0 9.85E-03 4.35E-02 3.01E-03 1.48E-02

E07 0 0 1.42E-03 6.29E-03 4.35E-04 2.14E-03

E08 0 0 9.85E-03 4.35E-02 3.01E-03 1.48E-02

E09 0 0 3.65E-03 1.85E-02 1.28E-03 6.30E-03

E10 3.57E-03 5.60E-04 1.15E-03 1.24E-03 1.32E-04 4.29E-04

E11 3.57E-03 5.60E-04 1.15E-03 1.24E-03 1.32E-04 4.29E-04

E12 3.57E-03 5.60E-04 1.15E-03 1.24E-03 1.32E-04 4.29E-04

E13 1.22E-03 1.91E-04 3.92E-04 4.24E-04 4.51E-05 1.46E-04

E14 3.57E-03 5.60E-04 1.15E-03 1.24E-03 1.32E-04 4.29E-04

E15 1.22E-03 1.91E-04 3.92E-04 4.24E-04 4.51E-05 1.46E-04

E16 1.22E-03 1.91E-04 3.92E-04 4.24E-04 4.51E-05 1.46E-04

E17 1.07E-04 1.68E-05 3.46E-05 3.74E-05 3.98E-06 1.29E-05

E18 1.22E-03 1.91E-04 3.92E-04 4.24E-04 4.51E-05 1.46E-04

E19 2.20E-04 3.46E-05 7.10E-05 7.68E-05 8.17E-06 2.65E-05

E20 1.34E-03 2.10E-04 1.58E-03 8.47E-04 2.75E-05 3.21E-04

E21 3.71E-04 5.82E-05 4.40E-04 2.35E-04 7.63E-06 8.90E-05

E22 1.83E-04 2.87E-05 2.17E-04 1.16E-04 3.77E-06 4.40E-05

E23 1.83E-04 2.87E-05 2.17E-04 1.16E-04 3.77E-06 4.40E-05

E24 8.96E-04 1.41E-04 1.06E-03 5.68E-04 1.84E-05 2.15E-04

E25 8.96E-04 1.41E-04 1.06E-03 5.68E-04 1.84E-05 2.15E-04

E26 3.57E-03 5.60E-04 1.80E-03 9.59E-04 1.27E-04 3.04E-04

E27 9.38E-04 1.47E-04 1.11E-03 5.94E-04 1.93E-05 2.25E-04

E28 9.38E-04 1.47E-04 1.11E-03 5.94E-04 1.93E-05 2.25E-04

E29 8.65E-04 1.36E-04 1.03E-03 5.48E-04 1.78E-05 2.08E-04

E30 8.65E-04 1.36E-04 1.03E-03 5.48E-04 1.78E-05 2.08E-04

E31 9.38E-04 1.47E-04 1.11E-03 5.94E-04 1.93E-05 2.25E-04

E32 9.38E-04 1.47E-04 1.11E-03 5.94E-04 1.93E-05 2.25E-04

E33 8.96E-04 1.41E-04 1.06E-03 5.68E-04 1.84E-05 2.15E-04

E34 9.38E-04 1.47E-04 1.11E-03 5.94E-04 1.93E-05 2.25E-04

E35 9.38E-04 1.47E-04 1.11E-03 5.94E-04 1.93E-05 2.25E-04

E36 9.38E-04 1.47E-04 1.11E-03 5.94E-04 1.93E-05 2.25E-04

E37 8.96E-04 1.41E-04 1.06E-03 5.68E-04 1.84E-05 2.15E-04

E38 8.96E-04 1.41E-04 1.06E-03 5.68E-04 1.84E-05 2.15E-04

E39 8.96E-04 1.41E-04 1.06E-03 5.68E-04 1.84E-05 2.15E-04

Notes: [1] Emission rates were developed assuming TVAUs for odour control on the proposed tanks, with a total control efficiency of 99.4% and 99.2% for H2S and mercaptans, respectively, based on updated information from the TVAU vendor. All emission rates include standing losses, and some emission rates include both standing and working losses. The number of tanks with working losses is based on the maximum number of pumps in operation at the same time. The emission rates that include maximum working losses for each contaminant have been highlighted in grey. The modelling assumed that one tank with a TVAU had working losses. The working losses were calculated based on a receiving pipeline capacity of 568,400 bbl/day for Line 2 (from two tanks holding heavy crude) and 368,400 bbl/day for Line 1 (from one tank holding light sweet crude or refined product).


rwdi.com Page 25

Table 12: Edmonton Storage Tanks Annual Emission Rates, Application Case (in t/y)



E01 2.67E-05 5.58E-06 5.28E-03 2.82E-03 9.17E-05 1.07E-03

E02 2.88E-05 6.02E-06 5.69E-03 3.04E-03 9.88E-05 1.15E-03

E03 2.88E-05 6.02E-06 5.69E-03 3.04E-03 9.88E-05 1.15E-03

E04 2.88E-05 6.02E-06 5.69E-03 3.04E-03 9.88E-05 1.15E-03

E05 0 0 8.32E-02 3.67E-01 2.54E-02 1.25E-01

E06 0 0 8.32E-02 3.67E-01 2.54E-02 1.25E-01

E07 0 0 1.76E-02 7.78E-02 5.39E-03 2.64E-02

E08 0 0 8.32E-02 3.67E-01 2.54E-02 1.25E-01

E09 0 0 4.09E-02 1.81E-01 1.25E-02 6.14E-02

E10 3.37E-02 5.29E-03 1.09E-02 1.17E-02 1.25E-03 4.06E-03

E11 3.36E-02 5.26E-03 1.08E-02 1.17E-02 1.24E-03 4.04E-03

E12 3.36E-02 5.27E-03 1.08E-02 1.17E-02 1.25E-03 4.04E-03

E13 1.73E-02 2.72E-03 5.58E-03 6.04E-03 6.43E-04 2.09E-03

E14 3.36E-02 5.27E-03 1.08E-02 1.17E-02 1.25E-03 4.04E-03

E15 1.74E-02 2.73E-03 5.60E-03 6.06E-03 6.45E-04 2.09E-03

E16 1.73E-02 2.71E-03 5.57E-03 6.02E-03 6.41E-04 2.08E-03

E17 5.32E-03 8.34E-04 1.71E-03 1.85E-03 1.97E-04 6.40E-04

E18 1.74E-02 2.73E-03 5.60E-03 6.06E-03 6.45E-04 2.09E-03

E19 6.73E-03 1.06E-03 2.17E-03 2.34E-03 2.49E-04 8.09E-04

E20 5.94E-03 9.32E-04 7.04E-03 3.76E-03 1.22E-04 1.43E-03

E21 5.91E-03 9.27E-04 7.00E-03 3.74E-03 1.22E-04 1.42E-03

E22 4.04E-03 6.34E-04 4.79E-03 2.56E-03 8.31E-05 9.70E-04

E23 3.91E-03 6.13E-04 4.63E-03 2.47E-03 8.03E-05 9.37E-04

E24 1.25E-02 1.96E-03 1.48E-02 7.93E-03 2.57E-04 3.00E-03

E25 1.25E-02 1.96E-03 1.48E-02 7.93E-03 2.57E-04 3.00E-03

E26 2.65E-02 4.16E-03 1.34E-02 1.28E-02 1.69E-03 4.06E-03

E27 1.34E-02 2.10E-03 1.58E-02 8.46E-03 2.75E-04 3.21E-03

E28 1.34E-02 2.10E-03 1.58E-02 8.46E-03 2.75E-04 3.21E-03

E29 1.18E-02 1.86E-03 1.40E-02 7.50E-03 2.44E-04 2.84E-03

E30 1.17E-02 1.83E-03 1.38E-02 7.40E-03 2.40E-04 2.80E-03

E31 1.34E-02 2.10E-03 1.58E-02 8.47E-03 2.75E-04 3.21E-03

E32 1.34E-02 2.10E-03 1.58E-02 8.47E-03 2.75E-04 3.21E-03

E33 1.25E-02 1.96E-03 1.48E-02 7.93E-03 2.57E-04 3.00E-03

E34 1.33E-02 2.09E-03 1.58E-02 8.45E-03 2.75E-04 3.20E-03

E35 1.34E-02 2.10E-03 1.58E-02 8.47E-03 2.75E-04 3.21E-03

E36 1.33E-02 2.09E-03 1.58E-02 8.44E-03 2.74E-04 3.20E-03

E37 1.25E-02 1.96E-03 1.48E-02 7.93E-03 2.57E-04 3.00E-03

E38 1.25E-02 1.96E-03 1.48E-02 7.93E-03 2.57E-04 3.00E-03

E39 1.25E-02 1.96E-03 1.48E-02 7.93E-03 2.57E-04 3.00E-03

Notes: [1] Emission rates were developed assuming TVAUs for odour control on the proposed tanks, with a total control efficiency of 99.4% and 99.2% for H2S and mercaptans, respectively. All emission rates include both standing and working losses. Working losses for each tank are based on annual throughput, provided in Appendix A (Table A-3).


rwdi.com Page 26

The Application Case included existing storage tank emissions that were modelled using the same method used

in the Base Case and were discussed in Section 4.1.1 (OMECC 2009). For the storage tanks with TVAUs, only

0.5% uncollected emissions were modelled as being emitted from the roof. The remaining collected and

unrecovered emissions after carbon adsorption were modelled as being emitted through the vertical TVAU

stacks as shown in Figure 5. Note that the TVAU stack in the figure is exaggerated for clarity. The top of the

stack is actually aligned with the top of the TVAU carbon vessel, approximately 6 m above the steel platform.

The TVAU vent stack flow rate is designed to be 3,765 m3/h. The stack diameter and exit velocity were set to

0.3048 m (12 inches) and 14.3 m/s, respectively.

Figure 5: TVAU Stack Modelled at Edmonton and Burnaby Terminals

External Facilities

Dispersion modelling parameters for the external facilities near ET were the same as in the 2013 Technical

report (except emission rates). A summary of the annual emission rates based on NPRI year 2014 are

summarized in Table 13. For xylenes, similar to the 2013 Technical report, speciation profiles from the

California Air Resources Board (CARB 2013) and the U.S. EPA SPECIATE 4.3 database (U.S. EPA 2011) were

selected. Edmonton North Forty Terminal emissions were calculated based on the methodology described in

Section 2.9.


RWDI#1602001 April 7, 2017

rwdi.com Page 27

Table 13: Edmonton External Facilities Emission Rates (in t/y)

NPRI ID Facility Name Total VOC H2S Mercaptans Benzene Toluene Ethyl- benzene Xylenes

126 Celanese EVA Performance Polymers Inc. - Edmonton Site 613 0.000 0.000 0.010 0.005 0.000 0.020

1106 AltaSteel Ltd. - AltaSteel 8 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000

1251 Owens Corning Insulating Systems Canada LP - Edmonton Plant 19 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000

1671 Nexeo Solutions Canada Corporation - Edmonton - Distribution 13 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.541 0.000 0.112

2301 ZCL Composites Inc. - ZCL Corrosion 20 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000

3707 Imperial Oil - Strathcona Refinery 735 4.201 0.000 3.060 11.100 1.970 11.300

3903 Suncor Energy Products Partnership - Edmonton Refinery 650 0.000 0.000 1.979 18.772 4.088 22.747

3974 Alberta Envirofuels - Alberta Envirofuels 42 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.001 0.000 0.010

4002 Shaw Pipe Protection Ltd. - Shaw Pipe Protection Ltd. - 21 Street, Edmonton 192 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.003 0.000 0.000

5245 Gilead Alberta ULC - Clover Bar Site 13 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.678 0.000 0.085

5262 ZCL Composites Inc. - Edmonton Plant 111 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000

5791 Procor Ltd. - EDMONTON 17 0.000 0.000 0.000 1.010 0.000 3.747

6566 Suncor Energy Products Partnership - Edmonton Terminal 846 0.000 0.000 9.940 11.716 0.000 266.673

6660 Shell Canada Products - Sherwood Marketing Terminal 636 0.000 0.000 0.000 2.514 0.000 189.809

6907 Enbridge Pipelines Inc. - Edmonton Terminal 218 0.000 0.000 0.000 1.439 0.000 35.233

10218 Imperial Oil - Edmonton Terminal 1310 0.000 0.000 2.200 6.000 0.000 344.053

16950 Great Western Containers Inc. - Edmonton South Plant 32 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 7.688

19995 Air Products Canada Ltd. - Edmonton Hydrogen Facility 33 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.106

21533 Gibson Energy Ltd. - Edmonton South Terminal 417 0.000 0.000 1.582 1.366 0.000 115.626

21957 Weatherford Engineered Chemistry Canada Ltd. - Weatherford Blend Facility and Warehouse 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.007

23575 Keyera Corp - Alberta Diluent Terminal (ADT) Terminal 68 0.000 0.000 0.267 0.147 0.000 0.000

22904 Kinder Morgan Canada Inc. - Edmonton North 40 Terminal 42 0.291 0.253 0.071 0.051 0.004 0.019


RWDI#1602001 April 7, 2017

rwdi.com Page 28

Dispersion Model Results

Table 14 summarizes the predicted results for all contaminants for the ET Only for the Base and Application

Cases, without ambient background. All of the modelled concentrations are below their respective ambient air

quality objectives.

Table 14: Maximum Predicted Concentrations for the Edmonton Terminal Only Excluding Ambient Background, Base Case and Application Case (in µg/m3)

Pollutant Averaging Period [1]

Base Case Edmonton Terminal Only

Application Case Edmonton Terminal Only

Applicable Ambient Air

Quality Objective

Benzene 1-hour 5.8 9.6 30

Annual 0.09 0.2 3

Ethyl benzene 1-hour 1.2 2.8 2000

Toluene 1-hour 17.0 40.1 1880

24-hour 7.4 19.7 400

Xylenes 1-hour 5.8 11.7 2300

24-hour 2.5 5.1 700

Hydrogen sulphide

1-hour 2.7 2.7 14

24-hour 1.1 1.2 4

Mercaptans 10-min 0.8 0.7 13[2]

Notes: [1] For the 1-hour averaging period, predicted 9th highest values are presented, as per the Alberta Air Quality Model Guideline (AEP 2013).

[2] No objectives for total mercaptans exist in Alberta. The 10-minute Ontario Ambient Air Quality Criteria has been presented for comparison (OMECC 2012).

Table 15 summarizes the results for all contaminants for the Base and Application Cases at the ET, including

ambient background and modelled emissions from all of the background industrial facilities described in

Section 2.9.


RWDI#1602001 April 7, 2017

rwdi.com Page 29

Table 15: Maximum Predicted Concentrations for the Edmonton Terminal Including Ambient Background and Nearby Background Industrial Facilities, Base Case and Application Case (in µg/m3)

Pollutant Averaging Period [1]

Ambient Background

Base Case Edmonton

Terminal (With Ambient

Background and Nearby Facilities)

Application Case Edmonton

Terminal (With Ambient

Background and Nearby Facilities)

Applicable Ambient

Air Quality Objective

Benzene 1-hour 9.5 53.0 53.0 30

Annual 1.2 3.6 3.6 3

Ethyl benzene 1-hour 3.6 12.3 12.3 2000

Toluene 1-hour 20.8 85.2 85.2 1880

24-hour 4.2 33.5 33.7 400

Xylenes 1-hour 16.6 1232 1232 2300

24-hour 3.3 699 699 700

Hydrogen sulphide 1-hour 1.4 8.3 8.3 14

24-hour 1.4 5.2 5.2 4

Mercaptans 10-min - 0.8 0.7 13[2]

Notes: [1] For the 1-hour averaging period, predicted 9th highest values are presented, as per the Alberta Air Quality Model Guideline (AEP 2013).

[2] No objectives for total mercaptans exist in Alberta. The 10-minute Ontario Ambient Air Quality Criteria has been presented for comparison (OMECC 2012).

Bold values indicate exceedance of the applicable ambient air quality objective.

The predicted 9th highest 1-hour benzene concentration exceeded the AAAQO near the Suncor facility (NPRI ID

6566) in the Base and Application Cases. Concentrations of 1-hour benzene, including background sources,

were predicted to exceed the AAAQO less than 1% of the time in both the Base and Application Cases. This

calculation includes all maximum predicted concentrations of benzene. The 1-hour benzene ambient

background is high at 9.5 µg/m³, almost one third of the AAAQO. The Suncor Edmonton Terminal was found to

contribute more than 99% to the maximum predicted concentration without ambient background, in both the

Base and Application Cases. All predicted exceedances were found to be localized around the Suncor facility,

which is located in a heavy industrial area with no local residences or sensitive receptors.

The maximum predicted annual benzene concentration was found to exceed the AAAQO in the Base and

Application Cases. The ambient background is 1.2 µg/m³, which is almost half of the AAAQO. Exceedances of

the annual AAAQO for benzene, including ambient background, were predicted to occur in each of the five

years modelled. Similar to 1-hour benzene, elevated concentrations were predicted to occur near modelled

external industrial sources. The nearby Suncor facility was found to contribute more than 91% of the predicted

annual benzene concentration in both the Base and Application Cases. By comparison, KMC emission sources

were found to contribute less than 0.3% and 0.5% respectively, in the Base and Application Cases, of the

resultant concentration prior to adding ambient background.

The predicted 9th highest 1-hour xylenes concentration, including background, was about 54% of the AAAQO for

the Base and Application Cases.


RWDI#1602001 April 7, 2017

rwdi.com Page 30

The maximum predicted 24-hour xylenes concentration, including background, was about 99.8% of the AAAQO

for the Base and Application Cases. The maximum predicted concentrations occurred near the Imperial Oil

Terminal (NPRI ID 10218). More than 99% of the maximum predicted concentration without background was

contributed from the Imperial Oil Terminal in both the Base and Application Cases. By comparison, the KMC

emission sources were found to contribute less than 0.01% in the Base and Application Cases, of the resultant

concentration prior to adding ambient background.

The predicted 9th highest 1-hour H2S concentrations both with and without background were less than the

AAAQO for the Base and Application Cases.

The maximum predicted 24-hour H2S concentration with background exceeded the AAAQO for the Base and

Application Cases. The ambient background is 1.4 µg/m³, which is over a third of the AAAQO. Concentrations of

24-hour H2S, including background, were predicted to exceed the AAAQO less than 0.3% of the time in the Base

Case and approximately 7% of the time in the Application Case. Over 99% of the maximum predicted

concentration without background was due to emissions from the Imperial Refinery in both the Base and

Application Cases. By comparison, the KMC sources contributed less than 1% of the resultant concentration

prior to adding the ambient background, in both the Base and Application Cases.

All predicted concentrations for ethyl benzene, toluene and total mercaptans were below their respective

AAAQO and ambient guidelines for all averaging periods in the Base and Application Cases.

Concentration contour plots for benzene and H2S are provided for the Base Case in Appendix D, Figures D-1 to

D-4, respectively. Figures D-15 to D-18 present concentration contour plots for benzene and H2S for the

Application Case.


RWDI#1602001 April 7, 2017

rwdi.com Page 31

5 BURNABY TERMINAL MODEL PARAMETERS AND RESULTS



Model Parameters

Base Case

The updated modelling for the Base Case at the BT considered thirteen tanks holding heavy crude, light sweet crude and refined products. Tank parameters for the Base Case are presented in Table 16. Resultant hourly and annual emission rates are summarized in Table 17 and Table 18, respectively.

The BT Base Case tank emissions were modelled using the same method used for the ET Base Case and was

discussed in Section 4.1.1.

Table 16: Burnaby Storage Tank Details and Assumed Product, Base Case


Height (ft)


B71 EFRT 120.0 40.0 60 Light Sweet Crude

B72 EFRT 120.0 40.0 59 Refined Products

B73 DEFRT 120.0 40.0 60 Heavy Crude


B81 DEFRT 150.0 48.0 128 Light Sweet Crude

B82 EFRT 150.0 48.0 122 Heavy Crude








Note: EFRT = External Floating Roof Tank and DEFRT = Domed External Floating Roof Tank


RWDI#1602001 April 7, 2017

rwdi.com Page 32

Table 17: Burnaby Storage Tanks Maximum Hourly Emission Rates, Base Case (in g/s)



B71 3.63E-04 5.05E-05 1.55E-04 1.67E-04 4.72E-05 5.78E-05

B72 0 0 1.95E-03 8.60E-03 5.95E-04 2.92E-03

B73 3.52E-03 4.62E-04 8.99E-04 4.81E-04 2.43E-06 1.82E-04

B74 4.12E-04 5.74E-05 1.76E-04 1.90E-04 4.96E-05 6.57E-05

B81 6.29E-05 8.76E-06 2.68E-05 2.90E-05 2.66E-05 1.00E-05

B82 1.93E-03 2.53E-04 4.92E-04 2.63E-04 8.54E-06 9.97E-05

B83 4.49E-04 6.25E-05 1.92E-04 2.07E-04 2.21E-05 7.16E-05

B84 4.49E-04 6.25E-05 1.92E-04 2.07E-04 2.21E-05 7.16E-05

B85 1.93E-03 2.53E-04 4.92E-04 2.63E-04 8.54E-06 9.97E-05

B86 3.31E-04 4.35E-05 8.47E-05 4.53E-05 1.47E-06 1.72E-05

B87 3.06E-03 4.01E-04 7.82E-04 4.18E-04 3.02E-06 1.58E-04

B88 3.06E-03 4.01E-04 7.82E-04 4.18E-04 3.02E-06 1.58E-04

B90 3.31E-04 4.35E-05 8.47E-05 4.53E-05 1.47E-06 1.72E-05

Notes: All emission rates include standing losses, and some emission rates include both standing and working losses. The number of tanks with working losses is based on the maximum number of pumps in operation at the same time. The emission rates that include maximum working losses for each contaminant have been highlighted in grey.

The working losses are based on existing operating limits. Product delivery rates from Burnaby Terminal tanks to a tanker at the Westridge Marine Terminal range from 1,200 to 3,000 m3/h using the existing NPS 24 pipeline (1,000 m3/h was assumed for each of the three tanks; total flow rate from three tanks is 3,000 m3/h). The working losses for tank 72 holding refined product were calculated based on the delivery rate to the Chevron Refinery of 700 m3/h.

Table 18: Burnaby Storage Tanks Annual Emission Rates, Base Case (in t/y)



B71 6.09E-03 8.49E-04 2.60E-03 2.81E-03 2.99E-04 9.71E-04

B72 0 0 2.71E-02 1.20E-01 8.27E-03 4.06E-02

B73 9.96E-03 1.31E-03 2.55E-03 1.36E-03 4.42E-05 5.16E-04

B74 6.76E-03 9.41E-04 2.88E-03 3.12E-03 3.32E-04 1.08E-03

B81 2.37E-03 3.30E-04 1.01E-03 1.09E-03 1.16E-04 3.78E-04

B82 3.14E-02 4.11E-03 8.02E-03 4.29E-03 1.39E-04 1.62E-03

B83 7.87E-03 1.10E-03 3.36E-03 3.63E-03 3.87E-04 1.25E-03

B84 7.89E-03 1.10E-03 3.36E-03 3.64E-03 3.87E-04 1.26E-03

B85 3.13E-02 4.11E-03 8.00E-03 4.28E-03 1.39E-04 1.62E-03

B86 8.62E-03 1.13E-03 2.20E-03 1.18E-03 3.83E-05 4.46E-04

B87 1.40E-02 1.84E-03 3.58E-03 1.91E-03 6.21E-05 7.25E-04

B88 1.40E-02 1.83E-03 3.57E-03 1.91E-03 6.21E-05 7.24E-04

B90 8.80E-03 1.15E-03 2.25E-03 1.20E-03 3.91E-05 4.56E-04




RWDI#1602001 April 7, 2017

rwdi.com Page 33

Application Case

The updated modelling for the Application Case at the BT considered 26 tanks holding heavy crude, light sweet

crude and refined products. Tank parameters for the Application Case including stored product are provided in

Table 19. All of the new tanks were modelled as IFRT with TVAUs. Resultant hourly and annual emission rates

are summarized in Table 20 and Table 21, respectively. Emission rates for H2S and mercaptans were developed

assuming TVAUs on all of the proposed tanks, with a total odour control efficiency of 99.4% for H2S and 99.2%

for mercaptans based on the TVAU vendor information.

The BT Application Case tank emissions were modelled using the same method used for the ET Application

Case which was discussed in Section 4.1.2. For the Project storage tanks with TVAUs, uncollected emissions

(assumed to be 0.5%) were modelled as being emitted from the roof. The remaining emissions after collection

and recovery were modelled as being emitted through the vertical TVAU stacks as shown in Figure 4.


RWDI#1602001 April 7, 2017

rwdi.com Page 34

Table 19: Burnaby Storage Tank Details and Assumed Product, Application Case


Height (ft)



B72 EFRT 120.0 40.0 68 Refined Products


B74 IFRT with TVAU 185.0 60.0 248 Heavy Crude

B75 IFRT with TVAU 185.0 60.0 248 Light Sweet Crude






















Notes: IFRT = Internal Floating Roof Tank, EFRT = External Floating Roof Tank, DEFRT = Domed External Floating Roof Tank and TVAU = Tank Vapour Adsorption Unit

All proposed tanks are highlighted in grey.


RWDI#1602001 April 7, 2017

rwdi.com Page 35

Table 20: Burnaby Storage Tanks Maximum Hourly Emission Rates, Application Case (in g/s)



B71 2.36E-03 3.71E-04 7.61E-04 8.23E-04 8.77E-05 2.84E-04

B72 0 0 2.14E-03 9.47E-03 6.55E-04 3.21E-03

B73 2.03E-03 3.18E-04 6.52E-04 7.06E-04 7.51E-05 2.44E-04

B74 1.70E-06 3.55E-07 3.36E-04 1.80E-04 5.84E-06 6.81E-05

B75 2.48E-06 5.18E-07 1.33E-04 1.44E-04 1.53E-05 4.98E-05

B76 1.70E-06 3.55E-07 3.36E-04 1.80E-04 5.84E-06 6.81E-05

B77 2.48E-06 5.18E-07 1.33E-04 1.44E-04 1.53E-05 4.98E-05

B78 8.81E-06 1.84E-06 1.74E-03 9.31E-04 3.02E-05 3.53E-04

B79 1.71E-06 3.56E-07 9.16E-05 9.91E-05 1.05E-05 3.42E-05

B80 1.57E-06 3.29E-07 3.11E-04 1.66E-04 5.40E-06 6.30E-05

B81 9.18E-05 1.44E-05 2.96E-05 3.20E-05 3.40E-06 1.10E-05

B82 4.56E-04 7.15E-05 5.40E-04 2.89E-04 9.37E-06 1.09E-04

B83 6.53E-04 1.02E-04 2.10E-04 2.28E-04 2.42E-05 7.86E-05

B84 4.56E-04 7.15E-05 5.40E-04 2.89E-04 9.37E-06 1.09E-04

B85 6.53E-04 1.02E-04 2.10E-04 2.28E-04 2.42E-05 7.86E-05

B86 7.87E-05 1.23E-05 9.33E-05 4.99E-05 1.62E-06 1.89E-05

B87 2.36E-04 3.70E-05 7.59E-05 8.21E-05 8.74E-06 2.84E-05

B88 1.35E-03 2.12E-04 1.60E-03 8.56E-04 2.78E-05 3.24E-04

B89 2.30E-06 4.80E-07 1.23E-04 1.33E-04 1.42E-05 4.61E-05

B90 1.27E-03 1.99E-04 1.50E-03 8.03E-04 2.61E-05 3.04E-04

B91 1.70E-06 3.55E-07 3.36E-04 1.80E-04 5.84E-06 6.81E-05

B93 1.70E-06 3.55E-07 3.36E-04 1.80E-04 5.84E-06 6.81E-05

B95 1.70E-06 3.55E-07 3.36E-04 1.80E-04 5.84E-06 6.81E-05

B96 7.69E-06 1.61E-06 1.52E-03 8.12E-04 2.64E-05 3.08E-04

B97 1.70E-06 3.55E-07 3.36E-04 1.80E-04 5.84E-06 6.81E-05

B98 1.57E-06 3.29E-07 3.11E-04 1.66E-04 5.40E-06 6.30E-05

Notes: [1] Emission rates were developed assuming TVAUs on the proposed tanks, with a total control efficiency of 99.4% and 99.2% for H2S and mercaptans, respectively.

All emission rates include standing losses, and some emission rates include both standing and working losses. The number of tanks with working losses is based on the maximum number of pumps in operation at the same time. Two different products can be delivered from up to six tanks (two with TVAUs) at Burnaby Terminal to Westridge Marine Terminal, and refined product can be delivered to Chevron Refinery, at the same time. The emission rates that include working losses have been highlighted in grey.

The working losses were calculated based on maximum receiving pipeline capacity of 700,000 bbl/day for each of the three proposed delivery pipelines from the Burnaby Terminal to Westridge Marine Terminal. The working losses for tank 72 holding refined product were calculated based on the delivery rate to Chevron Refinery of 700 m3/h.


RWDI#1602001 April 7, 2017

rwdi.com Page 36

Table 21: Burnaby Storage Tanks Annual Emission Rates, Application Case (in t/y)



B71 8.98E-03 1.41E-03 2.89E-03 3.13E-03 3.33E-04 1.08E-03

B72 0 0 2.94E-02 1.30E-01 8.99E-03 4.41E-02

B73 3.97E-03 6.22E-04 1.28E-03 1.38E-03 1.47E-04 4.77E-04

B74 4.52E-05 9.45E-06 8.94E-03 4.78E-03 1.55E-04 1.81E-03

B75 5.41E-05 1.13E-05 2.90E-03 3.14E-03 3.34E-04 1.08E-03

B76 4.52E-05 9.45E-06 8.94E-03 4.78E-03 1.55E-04 1.81E-03

B77 5.41E-05 1.13E-05 2.90E-03 3.14E-03 3.34E-04 1.08E-03

B78 3.28E-05 6.85E-06 6.48E-03 3.47E-03 1.13E-04 1.31E-03

B79 3.88E-05 8.10E-06 2.08E-03 2.25E-03 2.40E-04 7.78E-04

B80 4.23E-05 8.83E-06 8.36E-03 4.47E-03 1.45E-04 1.69E-03

B81 3.40E-03 5.34E-04 1.10E-03 1.19E-03 1.26E-04 4.09E-04

B82 8.84E-03 1.39E-03 1.05E-02 5.60E-03 1.82E-04 2.12E-03

B83 1.14E-02 1.80E-03 3.69E-03 3.99E-03 4.24E-04 1.38E-03

B84 8.88E-03 1.39E-03 1.05E-02 5.62E-03 1.83E-04 2.13E-03

B85 1.15E-02 1.81E-03 3.71E-03 4.01E-03 4.27E-04 1.39E-03

B86 3.28E-03 5.15E-04 3.89E-03 2.08E-03 6.75E-05 7.88E-04

B87 5.30E-03 8.31E-04 1.71E-03 1.84E-03 1.96E-04 6.37E-04

B88 4.47E-03 7.01E-04 5.29E-03 2.83E-03 9.19E-05 1.07E-03

B89 5.04E-05 1.05E-05 2.71E-03 2.93E-03 3.12E-04 1.01E-03

B90 3.61E-03 5.66E-04 4.27E-03 2.28E-03 7.42E-05 8.65E-04

B91 4.52E-05 9.45E-06 8.94E-03 4.78E-03 1.55E-04 1.81E-03

B93 4.52E-05 9.45E-06 8.94E-03 4.78E-03 1.55E-04 1.81E-03

B95 4.52E-05 9.45E-06 8.94E-03 4.78E-03 1.55E-04 1.81E-03

B96 4.23E-05 8.83E-06 8.36E-03 4.47E-03 1.45E-04 1.69E-03

B97 4.52E-05 9.45E-06 8.94E-03 4.78E-03 1.55E-04 1.81E-03

B98 4.23E-05 8.83E-06 8.36E-03 4.47E-03 1.45E-04 1.69E-03

Notes: [1] Emission rates were developed assuming TVAUs on the proposed tanks, with a total control efficiency of 99.4% and 99.2% for H2S and mercaptans, respectively.

All emission rates include both standing and working losses.



RWDI#1602001 April 7, 2017

rwdi.com Page 37


Table 22 summarizes the predicted results for all contaminants for the Base and Application Cases at the BT

Only, without ambient background. All of the modelled concentrations are below their respective ambient air

quality objectives.

Table 22: Maximum Predicted Concentrations for Burnaby Terminal Only Excluding Ambient Background, Base Case and Application Case (in µg/m3)

Pollutant Averaging Period Base Case Burnaby Terminal Only

Application Case Burnaby Terminal

Only

Applicable Ambient Air Quality Objective

Benzene 1-hour 2.7 3.0 30

Annual 0.03 0.05 3

Ethyl benzene 1-hour 0.7 0.8 2,000

Toluene 1-hour 9.5 10.8 1,880

24-hour 1.6 1.8 400

Xylenes 1-hour 3.2 3.7 2,300

24-hour 0.5 0.6 700

Hydrogen sulphide

1-hour 1.1 2.1 7[1]

24-hour 0.2 0.5 3[1]

Mercaptans 10-min 0.3 0.5 13[2]

Notes: [1] H2S predictions are compared to the total reduced sulphur objective. There are no BC objectives for H2S.

[2] No objectives for total mercaptans exist in BC and Alberta. The 10-minute Ontario Ambient Air Quality Criteria has been presented for comparison (OMECC 2012).


RWDI#1602001 April 7, 2017

rwdi.com Page 38

6 WESTRIDGE MARINE TERMINAL MODEL PARAMETERS AND RESULTS



Model Parameters

Base Case

6.1.1.1 Vapour Combustion Unit Emissions

The updated modelling for the Base Case of the WMT considered one VCU along with the tanks holding the jet

kerosene product. The modelling also considered emissions from the tanker auxiliary engine and boiler during

loading at the existing berth location, as well as emissions from four tugs moving between the berth and anchor

locations. Finally, fugitive emissions from the tanker hold during loading were also included in the modelling.

Stack parameters for the existing VCU are provided in Table 23.

Table 23: Stack Parameters for the Existing VCU, Base Case

Emission

Source

Stack Height

(m)

Stack Diameter

(m)

Exit Temperature

(K)

Exit Velocity

(m/s) [1]

VCU 21.3 3.5 1,255.2 8.2

Note: [1] Exit velocity for VCU was estimated based on the stoichiometric exhaust to gas ratio.

Maximum hourly and annual emission rates of NOX, CO and BTEX for the existing VCU were estimated based on

the new VCU vendor emission rates. Maximum emission rates for H2S/mercaptans and SO2 were based on real

time measurements from the Levelton study and product speciation (Sections 2.5 and 2.6) and applying 98% and

100% combustion efficiencies, respectively. Maximum emission rates for PM2.5 were based on estimated heat

release of 141 MMBtu/h (based on vendor information) and U.S. EPA AP-42, Chapter 1.5: Liquefied Petroleum

Gas Combustion, emission factor of 0.7 lb/103 gal propane (U.S. EPA 2008b). The emission rates are provided in

Table 24 and Table 25, respectively. Corresponding collection and destruction efficiencies for the existing VCU

are provided in Table 26.


RWDI#1602001 April 7, 2017

rwdi.com Page 39

Table 24: Existing VCU Maximum Hourly Emission Rates, Base Case (in g/s)

Contaminant Existing VCU

Sulphur dioxide 2.0131

Oxides of nitrogen 3.5300

Respirable particulate matter - PM2.5 0.1363

Carbon monoxide 3.8820

Hydrogen sulphide 0.0193

Mercaptans 0.0030

Benzene 0.006

Toluene 0.006

Ethyl benzene 0.006

Xylenes 0.006

Note: All CAC emissions (SO2, NOX, PM and CO) include inert gas and combustion emissions. H2S, mercaptans and BTEX emissions include uncombusted emissions from tanker loading of heavy crude product.

Table 25: Existing VCU Annual Emission Rates, Base Case (in t/y)

Contaminant Existing VCU

Sulphur dioxide 12.4580

Oxides of nitrogen 21.8451

Respirable particulate matter - PM2.5 0.8437

Carbon monoxide 24.0234


Mercaptans 0.0187

Benzene 0.0371

Toluene 0.0371

Ethyl benzene 0.0371

Xylenes 0.0371

Note: All CAC emissions (SO2, NOX, PM and CO) include inert gas and combustion emissions. Annual emissions are based on loading times (34 hours for Aframax, 24 hours for Panamax and 9 hours for crude barges) and number of tankers/barges per year (27 Aframax tankers, 21 Panamax tankers and 33 crude barges).

Table 26: Collection and Destruction Efficiencies for the Existing VCU, Base Case

Compound Collection Efficiency Total Destruction Efficiency on Collected Vapours

H2S and Mercaptans 99.5% 98%

BTEX 99.5% 99%[1]

Note: [1] Based on mass emission rate of 2.4 mg VOC vented per liter of liquid loaded.


RWDI#1602001 April 7, 2017

rwdi.com Page 40

6.1.1.1 Criteria Air Contaminant Emissions at the Existing Berth

Stack parameters for the tanker auxiliary engine and boiler at the existing berth are provided in Table 27. The

emissions from the tugs were combined with the tanker engine and boiler emissions through the same stack.

With the exception of stack height, which is estimated specifically for Aframax vessels calling at the WMT, all

stack parameters represent a bulk average for all marine vessels, as recommended by the U.S. EPA, CARB, and

ECCC (Boulton et al. 2008).

Table 27: Stack Parameters for the Marine Auxiliary Engine and Boiler

Stack Height (m)

Stack Diameter (m)

Exit Temperature (K)

Exit Velocity (m/s)

37.0 0.80 555.2 25.0

Maximum hourly and annual emission rates for the marine auxiliary engine and boiler, which were estimated

based on the approach discussed in the Supplemental Marine Report (Filing ID A4F5H8), are provided in Table 28

and Table 29, respectively. Maximum hourly boiler and auxiliary engine emissions remain the same for each

tanker in the Base Case and Application Case; however, the time-in-mode at berth is expected to change as part

of the Project. Time-in-mode will increase from 34 hours (Base Case) to 48 hours (with Project) for Aframax

vessels. Time-in-mode for crude barges will increase from 9 hours (Base Case) to 25 hours (with Project) in both

Base and Application Cases.

Table 28: Boiler, Auxiliary Engine and Tug Engine Maximum Hourly Emission Rates, Base Case (per tanker, in g/s)

Contaminant Boiler Auxiliary Engine Tug Engine

SO2 0.0611 0.0400 0.0376

NOX 0.3758 1.3251 1.4427

PM2.5 0.0142 0.0250 0.0235

CO 0.1406 0.1049 0.1971

Table 29: Boiler, Auxiliary Engine and Tug Engine Annual Emission Rates, Base Case (in t/y)

Contaminant Boiler Auxiliary Engine Tug Engine

SO2 0.3128 0.2050 0.0113

NOX 1.9240 6.7836 0.4347

PM2.5 0.0728 0.1278 0.0071

CO 0.7195 0.5368 0.0594

Note: Annual emissions are estimated based on the number of vessels per year and total time spent at berth. Annual emissions are based on loading times (34 hours for Aframax, 24 hours for Panamas, 9 hours for crude barges) and number of tankers/barges per year (27 Aframax tankers, 21 Panamax tankers and 33 crude barges).



RWDI#1602001 April 7, 2017

rwdi.com Page 41

6.1.1.2 Fugitive Emissions at the Existing Berth

The VCU is expected to collect 99.5% of the vapours from the tanker hold as discussed in Section 2.5. The

remaining 0.5% is assumed to be fugitive emissions off the tanker, along with an additional 0.0001% associated

with connecting piping. Maximum hourly and annual emission rates from the total fugitive emissions for the

Base Case are shown in Table 30 and Table 31, respectively.

Table 30: Total Maximum Hourly Fugitive Emission Rates, Base Case (in g/s)

Contaminant Fugitive Emissions


Mercaptans 0.0008

Benzene 0.0060

Toluene 0.0032


Xylenes 0.0012


Table 31: Total Annual Fugitive Emission Rates, Base Case (in t/y)



Mercaptans 0.0048

Benzene 0.0322

Toluene 0.0189


Xylenes 0.0070

Note: Annual emissions are based on loading times (34 hours for Aframax, 24 hours for Panamas and 9 hours for crude barges) and number of tankers/barges per year (27 Aframax tankers, 21 Panamax tankers and 33 crude barges), product throughput, and speciation.

6.1.1.3 Fugitive Emissions from Storage Tanks

The updated modelling for the Base Case at WMT considered three storage tanks holding jet kerosene product.

Tank parameters for the Base Case are presented in Table 32. Resultant hourly and annual emission rates are

summarized in Table 33 and Table 34, respectively.

Table 32: Storage Tank Details and Assumed Product, Base Case

Tank ID Tank Design

Diameter (ft)

Height (ft)

Working Volume (kbbl)

Product Stored

WMT93 VFRT 90.0 40.0 20 Jet kerosene



Note: VFRT = Vertical Fixed Roof Tank


RWDI#1602001 April 7, 2017

rwdi.com Page 42

Table 33: Storage Tanks Maximum Hourly Emission Rates, Base Case (in g/s)



WMT93 0 0 2.56E-03 4.25E-02 1.88E-02 3.51E-02

WMT201 0 0 1.46E-05 2.42E-04 1.07E-04 2.00E-04

WMT202 0 0 1.49E-05 2.48E-04 1.10E-04 2.05E-04

Notes: All emission rates include standing losses, and some emission rates include both standing and working losses. The number of tanks with working losses is based on the maximum number of pumps in operation at the same time. The emissions that include working losses have been highlighted in grey.

The working losses were calculated based on the current average jet fuel delivery rate from the dock (i.e. barge) to Tank 201 or 202, which is 1,400 m3/h. The assumed product fill rate is 1,400 m3/h based on one tank at a time.

Table 34: Storage Tanks Annual Emission Rates, Base Case (in t/y)



WMT93 0 0 1.14E-03 1.89E-02 8.39E-03 1.56E-02

WMT201 0 0 2.07E-04 3.43E-03 1.52E-03 2.83E-03

WMT202 0 0 2.09E-04 3.47E-03 1.54E-03 2.86E-03


Working losses for each tank are based on annual throughput of 500,000 m3/year as per Vancouver Airport Fuel Delivery Project.

Application Case

6.1.2.1 VRUs and VCU Emissions

The updated modelling for the Application Case at WMT considered two VRUs and one VCU along with three

tanks holding jet kerosene. Emissions from auxiliary engines and boilers during loading at the proposed new

berth locations were also included in the modelling, as well as emissions from four tugs moving between the

berth and anchor locations. Finally, fugitive emissions from the tanker holds during loading were also included in

the modelling. Stack parameters for two new VRUs and one VCU are provided in Table 35.

Table 35: Stack parameters for the Proposed VRUs and VCU, Application Case

Parameter VRUs VCU

Height (m) 20 20

Diameter (m) 0.356 3.35

Exit Temperature (deg K) 288.6 1,144

Exit Velocity (m/s) 14.40 13.41

Notes: Stack parameters are as per vendor provided information. Ambient temperature was assumed for VRUs.


RWDI#1602001 April 7, 2017

rwdi.com Page 43

Maximum hourly and annual emission rates are summarized in Table 36 and Table 37 respectively. These

emission rates (except for PM2.5) are reported per vendor specifications and include inert gas. Maximum

emission rates for PM2.5 were calculated using the same method as in the Base Case (U.S. EPA 2008b).

Corresponding collection and removal, and destruction efficiencies for the proposed VRUs and VCU are provided

in Table 2 and Table 3, respectively.

Table 36: VRU/VCU Hourly Emission Rates, Application Case (in g/s)

Contaminant VRU 1 VRU 2 VCU

Sulphur dioxide 0.0220 0.0220 0.3830

Oxides of nitrogen 1.3300 1.3300 4.0000

Respirable particulate matter - PM2.5 0.0005 0.0005 0.1365

Carbon monoxide 0.4970 0.4970 4.0570

Hydrogen sulphide 0.0080 0.0080 0.0001

Mercaptans 0.0030 0.0030 0.0003

Benzene 0.0030 0.0030 0.0030

Toluene 0.0030 0.0030 0.0030

Ethyl benzene 0.0030 0.0030 0.0030

Xylenes 0.0030 0.0030 0.0030

Notes: All VCU CAC emissions (SO2, NOX, PM and CO) include inert gas and combustion emissions. All VRU CAC emissions include inert gas emissions. Annual emissions are based on VCU and VRUs utilization per year (43% for each VRU and 4% for VCU).

Table 37: VRU/VCU Annual Emission Rates, Application Case (in t/y)

Contaminant VRU 1 VRU 2 VCU

Sulphur dioxide 0.3004 0.3004 0.4590

Oxides of nitrogen 18.1613 18.1613 4.7935

Respirable particulate matter - PM2.5 0.0069 0.0069 0.1636

Carbon monoxide 6.7866 6.7866 4.8618

Hydrogen sulphide 0.1092 0.1092 0.0001

Mercaptans 0.0410 0.0410 0.0004

Benzene 0.0410 0.0410 0.0036

Toluene 0.0410 0.0410 0.0036

Ethyl benzene 0.0410 0.0410 0.0036

Xylenes 0.0738 0.0738 0.0036

Notes: All VCU CAC emissions (SO2, NOX, PM and CO) include inert gas and combustion emissions. All VRU CAC emissions include inert gas emissions. Annual emissions are based on VCU and VRUs utilization per year (43% for each VRU and 4% for VCU).


RWDI#1602001 April 7, 2017

rwdi.com Page 44

6.1.2.2 Criteria Air Contaminant Emissions at the Proposed Berths

Maximum hourly emission rates for each marine auxiliary engine and boiler for each of the three berth

locations, and for the tugs that travel between the anchor and berth locations, are the same as in the Base Case,

as provided in Table 28. The WMT berths increase from one to three in the Application Case, and the frequency

of tanker visits also increases. The annual emission rates for the marine auxiliary engine and boiler and tugs are

provided in Table 38 (emissions are at three berths).

Table 38: Boiler, Auxiliary Engine and Tug Engine Annual Emission Rates at Three Berths, Application Case (in t/y)

Contaminant Boiler1 Auxiliary Engine2 Tug Engine3

SO2 4.3085 2.8229 0.1586

NOX 26.497 93.425 6.0829

PM10 1.0899 1.9133 0.1075

PM2.5 1.0027 1.7603 0.0989

CO 9.9095 7.3934 0.8310

Notes: Annual emissions are estimated based on number of vessels per year and total time spent at berth. Annual emissions are based on loading times (48 hours for Aframax, 25 hours for crude barges) and number of tankers/barges per year (408 Aframax tankers and 36 crude barges).

[1] Based on boiler fuel consumption rate of 0.11 tonne/hr.

[2] Based on actual auxiliary engines power rating of 1,320 kW and loading factor of 0.26.

[3] No emissions from tugs is expected at berths. It wasassumed that there could be up to three to four tug escorts operating between berth and anchorage locations. As a modelling simplification, the combustion emissions from the four tug boats were distributed between six locations (three berths and three anchorage locations).

Based on actual engine power rating of 3728 kW (each of the three escort tug boats) and 1715 kW (4th escort tug boat ) travelling between three anchorage and three berth locations For each tanker it was calculated that it will take 1.5 hours to maneuver between berth and anchorage. For crude barges the two escort tag engines were at 3183 kW each. Loading factor of 0.1 (maneuvering) was used for tugs between anchorages and berths.

6.1.2.3 Fugitive Emissions at the Proposed Three Berths

The VRUs and VCU are expected to collect 99.5% of the vapours from the tanker hold during loading

(Section 2.5). The remaining 0.5% is assumed to be fugitive emissions released from the tanker, along with an

additional 0.0001% associated with connecting piping. Maximum hourly and annual emission rates from fugitive

emissions are shown in Table 39 and Table 40, respectively.

Table 39: Total Maximum Hourly Fugitive Emission Rates at each Berth, Application Case (in g/s)



Mercaptans 0.0012

Benzene 0.0074

Toluene 0.0046


Xylenes 0.0017



RWDI#1602001 April 7, 2017

rwdi.com Page 45

Table 40: Total Annual Fugitive Emission Rates at each Berth, Application Case (in t/y)



Mercaptans 0.0117

Benzene 0.0777

Toluene 0.0455


Xylenes 0.0170

Note: Annual emissions are based on loading times (48 hours for Aframax, 25 hours for crude barges) and number of tankers/barges per year (408 Aframax tankers and 36 crude barges), product throughput and speciation.


Table 41 summarizes the predicted results for all contaminants for WMT only for the Base and Application

Cases, without ambient background. All of the modelled concentrations are below their respective ambient air

quality objectives. For most of the modelled contaminants and averaging periods, the predicted concentrations

are higher for the Application Case, compared to the Base Case. The Base Case 1-hour SO2 results are higher

than in the Application Case. This is related to the proposed carbon guard beds upstream of the VRUs and VCU

for the Project, which are expected to remove 99.9% of H2S and mercaptans before entering the VCU, while in

the Base Case there is no upstream adsorption vessels for the existing VCU, and any reduced sulphurs present

in the VOC gas stream would be oxidized to SO2.


RWDI#1602001 April 7, 2017

rwdi.com Page 46

Table 41: Maximum Predicted Concentrations for Westridge Marine Terminal Excluding Ambient Background, Base Case and Application Case (in µg/m3)

Pollutant Averaging Period Base Case Westridge Marine Terminal Only

Application Case Westridge Marine

Terminal Only

Applicable Ambient Air Quality Objective

Respirable particulate

matter - PM2.5

24-hour 1.2 2.3 25[1]

Annual 0.01 0.07 8

Carbon monoxide

1-hour 80.3 348 14,300

8-hour 17.3 165 5,500

Oxides of nitrogen

1-hour 285 930 n/a

24-hour 56.4 247 n/a

Annual 0.5 11.0 n/a

Nitrogen dioxide[1]

1-hour 82.7 93.1 188[2]

24-hour 48.9 77.2 200

Annual 0.3 7.0 40

Sulphur dioxide

1-hour 38.5 15.4 170 to 183[3]

24-hour 3.7 4.1 125

Annual 0.07 0.2 10.5 to 13.1[4]

Benzene 1-hour 3.9 5.5 30[5]

Annual 0.03 0.15 3[5]

Ethyl benzene 1-hour 26.7 27.1 2,000[5]

Toluene 1-hour 60.2 61.6 1,880[5]

24-hour 15.9 16.2 400[5]

Xylenes 1-hour 49.7 50.4 2,300[5]

24-hour 13.1 13.4 700[5]

Hydrogen sulphide

1-hour 2.8 5.2 14[5]

24-hour 0.8 1.7 4[5]

Mercaptans 10-minute 0.7 3.2 13[6]

Notes: n/a not available


[2] Based on daily 1-hour maximum, annual 98th percentile of 1 year measurements.



[5] Alberta Ambient Air Quality Objectives (AAAQO) have been presented for benzene, ethyl benzene, toluene and xylenes as BC does not have objectives for these pollutants.



RWDI#1602001 April 7, 2017

rwdi.com Page 47

7 COMBINED SCENARIO MODEL RESULTS

Table 42 summarizes the results for all contaminants for the Combined BT and WMT emissions for the Base

and Application Cases including ambient background and all marine transportation (Project and non-Project

related) as follows:

• All storage tanks at BT;

• All storage tanks at WMT;

• VRUs and VCU (VRUs – present in Application Case only) at WMT;

• Fugitive emissions not captured by VRUs/VCU;

• Marine Project-related berth emissions:

o Combustion emissions: auxiliary engines and boilers;

• Marine Project-related underway (in transit) emissions:

o Combustion emissions: main engines, auxiliary engines, associated tugs and boilers;

o Fugitive emissions;

• Marine Project-related anchorage (hoteling) emissions:

o Combustion emissions: auxiliary engines and boilers;

o Fugitive emissions;

• Marine Project-related combustion emission from tugs maneuvering between anchorages and berths;

• Marine non-Project related emissions underway and at berth/anchorage locations (all vessels: main,

auxiliary engines and boilers based on the Marine Emission Inventory Tool (MEIT); and

• Ambient background (note: no representative background value for mercaptans was included because

measurements were not available).

All predicted maximum concentrations for each pollutant are below their respective ambient air quality

objectives. Concentration contour plots for the Combined Base Case are provided for PM2.5, NO2, SO2 and

benzene in Appendix D, Figures D-5 to D-14. Concentration contour plots for the Combined Application Case for

PM2.5, NO2, SO2 and benzene are provided in Figures D-19 to D-28.


RWDI#1602001 April 7, 2017

rwdi.com Page 48

Table 42: Maximum Predicted Concentrations for the Combined Base and Application Cases including Ambient Background (in µg/m3)

Pollutant Averaging Period

Ambient Background

Combined Base Case

Combined Application Case

Applicable Ambient Air

Quality Objective

Respirable particulate

matter - PM2.5

24-hour 12.5 14.5 15.2 25[1]

Annual 3.3 3.6 3.7 8

Carbon monoxide

1-hour 605 759 964 14,300

8-hour 543 566 712 5,500

Oxides of nitrogen

1-hour 111 1821 1822 n/a

24-hour 88.7 151 363 n/a

Annual 26.7 35.8 43.4 n/a

Nitrogen dioxide[1]

1-hour NOx background is used before

ARM is applied

182 182 188[2]

24-hour 66.2 87.0 200

Annual 23.0 27.8 40

Sulphur dioxide

1-hour 26.3 77.5 77.5 170 to 183[3]

24-hour 17.4 22.0 22.4 125

Annual 2.7 3.1 3.3 10.5 to 13.1[4]

Benzene 1-hour 5.1 10.3 11.8 30[5]

Annual 0.6 0.6 0.7 3[5]

Ethyl benzene 1-hour 2.7 29.4 29.9 2,000[5]

Toluene 1-hour 14.3 75.0 76.4 1,880[5]

24-hour 5.7 21.6 21.9 400[5]

Xylenes 1-hour 13.1 63.0 63.8 2,300[5]

24-hour 5.2 18.4 18.6 700[5]

Hydrogen sulphide

1-hour 0.0 4.4 6.1 14[5]

24-hour 0.2 2.4 3.0 4[5]

Mercaptans 10-minute n/a 1.1 3.2 13[6]

Notes: n/a not available


[2] Based on daily 1-hour maximum, annual 98th percentile of 1 year measurements.



[5] Alberta Ambient Air Quality Objectives (AAAQO) have been presented for benzene, ethyl benzene, toluene and xylenes as BC does not have objectives for these pollutants.



RWDI#1602001 April 7, 2017

rwdi.com Page 49

8 CONCLUSIONS

This supplemental report presents the changes to the assumptions which were used in the air quality

assessment presented in the 2013 Technical Report and Supplemental Technical Report No. 2. As the detailed

engineering for the Project has progressed, the assumptions used in the technical air quality assessment were

refined. This technical update reflects the design changes and updated assumptions, and provides a summary of

the updated modelling parameters and dispersion model results. The objectives of this additional dispersion

modelling were to:

• inform the engineering design for appropriate stack locations and stack heights;

• ensure that evolving engineering design of new tanks and vapour control configurations continues

to meet the applicable ambient air quality objectives at the ET, BT and WMT; and

• fulfill commitments for updated air quality modelling made through the NEB Information Request

process.

The results of the air quality assessment for the ET, BT and WMT that were completed as part of this

supplemental report, reflect the most up-to-date engineering design as of October 2016 and demonstrates that

the predicted concentrations from the Project are less than the respective ambient air quality objectives. The

refined assumptions used in the air quality modelling are summarized in Section 2 and changes relative to

earlier reports are summarized in Appendix A.

In summary, Trans Mountain is committed to meeting the applicable ambient air quality objectives at each

storage terminal. The predicted maximum concentrations with ambient background for all specified criteria air

contaminants such as SO2 and VOCs such as benzene were found to be less than their respective ambient air

quality objectives for all averaging periods for the Application and Combined Cases, with exception of the ET.

Any exceedances predicted to occur at the ET are due to the existing external (non-KMC) facilities contribution.


RWDI#1602001 April 7, 2017

rwdi.com Page 50

9 REFERENCES

Alberta Environment and Parks (AEP). 2013. Air Quality Model Guideline. Edmonton, AB. 56 pp.

AEP. 2016. Alberta Ambient Air Quality Objectives and Guidelines Summary. Downloaded from:

http://aep.alberta.ca/air/legislation/ambient-air-quality-objectives/documents/AAQO-Summary-Jun2016.pdf.

Accessed on September 29, 2016.

British Columbia Ministry of the Environment (BC MOE). 2015. British Columbia Air Quality Dispersion Modelling

Guideline. 111 pp.

BC MOE. 2016. British Columbia Air Quality Objectives and Standards. Downloaded from:

http://www.bcairquality.ca/reports/pdfs/aqotable.pdf. Accessed on November 1, 2016.

Boulton, J.W., M. Van Altena, D. Devine, X. Qiu, C. di Cenzo, and A. Green, 2008, Generating an Hour-By-Hour

Model-Ready Marine Emission Inventory, US EPA 17th Annual Emission Inventory Conference: Inventory

Evolution - Portal to Improved Air Quality, Portland, Oregon, June 2008.

California Air Resources Board. 2013. Speciation Profiles Used for ARB Modelling. Downloaded from:

http://www.arb.ca.gov/ei/speciate/speciate.htm. Accessed September 2013.

Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment (CCME). 1999. Canadian National Ambient Air Quality

Objectives: Process and Status. Downloaded from: http://ceqg-rcqe.ccme.ca/download/en/133/. Accessed on:

October 31, 2016.

CCME. 2015. Air Quality Management System. Canadian Ambient Air Quality Standards for particulate matter

and ozone. Downloaded from: http://www.ccme.ca/en/resources/air/pm_ozone.html. Accessed on: October 31,

2016.

CCME. 2016. Air Quality Management System. Canadian Ambient Air Quality Standards for SO2. Downloaded

from: http://www.ccme.ca/en/resources/air/air/sulphur-dioxide.html. Accessed on: October 31, 2016.

Chamber of Shipping. 2014. Letter from Stephen Brown President dated October 8, 2014.

Environment and Climate Change Canada (ECCC). 2013. National Pollutant Release Inventory. Downloaded

from: http://www.ec.gc.ca/inrp-npri/. Accessed on: April 2013.

ECCC. 2016. National Pollutant Release Inventory. Downloaded from: http://www.ec.gc.ca/inrp-npri/. Accessed

on: November 2016.

International Liquid Terminals Association. 2014. Measurement of VOC Losses During Marine Vessel Loading: A

Case Study. 34th Annual International Operating Conference & Trade Show. June 2 4, 2014. Presented by Brian

Cochran (URS Corporation) and Shannon DiSorbo (Kinder Morgan/DiSorbo Consulting).

Jacques Whitford AXYS Ltd. 2007. Edmonton Terminal Expansion Project Environmental and Socio-Economic

Assessment. Prepared for Trans Mountain. Calgary, AB. 244 pp.

Levelton Consultants Ltd. (Levelton) 2014. Kinder Morgan Westridge Terminal Vapour Combustion Unit Study.

http://aep.alberta.ca/air/legislation/ambient-air-quality-objectives/documents/AAQO-Summary-Jun2016.pdf

http://www.bcairquality.ca/reports/pdfs/aqotable.pdf

http://www.arb.ca.gov/ei/speciate/speciate.htm

http://ceqg-rcqe.ccme.ca/download/en/133/

http://www.ccme.ca/en/resources/air/pm_ozone.html

http://www.ccme.ca/en/resources/air/air/sulphur-dioxide.html

http://www.ec.gc.ca/inrp-npri/

http://www.ec.gc.ca/inrp-npri/


RWDI#1602001 April 7, 2017

rwdi.com Page 51

Levelton. 2015. Westridge Tanker Loading Vapour Studies conducted through year 2015.

Ontario Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change (OMECC). 2009. Guideline A-11: Air Dispersion

Modelling Guideline for Ontario. March 2009. 154 pp.

OMECC. 2012. Ontario’s Ambient Air Quality Criteria. Standards Development Branch. 15 pp.

SNC-Lavalin Environment. 2012. 2010 National Marine Emissions Inventory for Canada. Prepared for

Environment Canada. Burnaby, BC. 179 pp.

United States Environmental Protection Association (U.S. EPA). 2008a. AP-42, Chapter 5.2: Transportation And

Marketing Of Petroleum Liquids, Table 5.2-6 Total Organic Emission Factors for Petroleum Marine Vessel

Sources. Loading operations for crude oil.

U.S. EPA. 2008b. AP-42, Chapter 1.5: Liquefied Petroleum Gas Combustion, Table 1.5-1 Emission Factors for LPG

Combustion, Propane Emission Factors

U.S. EPA, 2011. AP-42, Chapter 5.2: SPECIATE Version 4.3, September 2011. Downloaded from:

https://www.epa.gov/air-emissions-modeling/speciate-version-45-through-32. Accessed on: December 2016.

https://www.epa.gov/air-emissions-modeling/speciate-version-45-through-32

Date post:	08-Jul-2020
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	11 times
Download:	0 times

WESTRIDGE MARINE TERMINAL UPGRADE AND EXPANSION …...Trans Mountain Expansion Project April 2017...

Documents